Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.

1. The first defendant is the appellant and the only question is-whether a puramkadam advance of Rs. 400 made by him on 9th February, 1923, to Damodaran Nambudiri said to be the then kamavan of the fifth defendants tarwad is binding against the plaintiff. The. plaintiff is the melcharthdar claiming under Ex. P-2, dated 25th October, 1938. She filed the suit to redeem the original kanom evidenced by Ex. P-1 dated 12th May, 1920, which was for a sum of Rs. 100-and a purapad of 62 paras of paddy. In answer, the first defendant set up that he was entitled to be paid the puramkadam advance also, which he gave to Damodaran Nambudiri under Ex. D-1. Both the Courts have held that the puramkadam advance is not binding against the plaintiff, as it was made contrary to the terms of a karar, Ex. D-4, entered into between the members of the fifth defendants tarwad on nth November, 1919, under which it was agreed that no debts could be borrowed for the tarwad except by the consent of all the adult members of the tarwad. The lower Courts have found that the first defendant had notice of this karar. In fact, the kanom deed, Ex. P-1, refers to this karar, Ex. D-4. Th