The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of the renewal of 1911 due to the failure to consult the 4th plaintiff and the introduction of a stranger into the uraima right in the temple.

Spencer, J.

1. This suit was brought for redemption of a kanam and for setting aside a prior renewal granted by the 19th and 24th defendants. The suit was decreed in the District Court, and in second appeal several objections have been taken.

2. The 4th plaintiff is a minor and the 5th plaintiff was put forward in the District Munsifs court as his agent. But in the District Court, he was brought on record as the next friend of the 4th plaintiff and allowed to prosecute the suit. It is objected that this procedure was not legal on the ground that the property in suit was that belonging to a devaswom belonging to an Illom and that the 4th plaintiff as a minor was not competent to represent the illom. Order 32, Rule 2 provides that "where a suit is instituted by or on behalf of a minor without a next friend, the defendant may apply to have the plaint taken off the file". But there is no legal objection to the course taken by the District Court of impleading the 5th plaintiff as the next friend of the 4th plaintiff and allowing him to continue the suit.

3. The frame of the suit as finally constituted is not open to objection. We have not been shown any authority for holding that a minor is incompetent to be an uralan of a dewaswom.

4. The second point argued is that the present suit should have been dismissed as barred by res judicata on account of the prior suit O.S. No. 8 of 1901 filed for the same purpose having been dismissed for non-joinder and that decree having become final on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to appeal to this Court. But it cannot be said that the questions decided in the present suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and decided between the parties.

5. The defendants (appellants) counsel wished to raise another point regarding the failure of the plaintiffs to join the attaladakkam heirs in this suit. But as this was not raised in first appeal we cannot allow it to be taker? here.

6. The last and substantial point in the case is whether the renewal of 1911 was invalid. The District Judge found that it was so because the 24th defendant had introduced a stranger (19th defendant) who was not an uralan in the deed of renewal. So far as the inclusion of this stranger tended to support pretensions on his part to have a right to deal with the properties of the Dewasworn, the action of the 24th defendant was a breach of trust, and the lower courts decision can also be supported on the ground that the renewal was manifestly bad for want of consultation with the other members of the illom. In my opinion the lower appellate court was right, and the second appeal should be dismissed with costs. Time for redemption is extended for 4 months. The memo, of objections is dismissed with costs.

Krishnan, J.

7. This Second Appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of South Malabar in O.S. No. 97 of 1912 brought before the Principal District Munsif of Calicut, for the redemption of a kanom granted by the then uralars of the Cheruvannore Devaswom in the year 1856. The District Judge has granted the redemption as prayed for, and the appeal is against that decree.

8. The appellants are the 1st defendant who represents the mortgagees interest at present and the 24th defendant who is one of the Urallers of the Devaswom. The suit was originally brought by five plaintiffs, the first four plaintiffs being the members of Kanholi Illom, and the 5th plaintiff their agent or muktiyar. The plaint had been signed by this 5th plaintiff and not by any others. There was also another defect in the plaint that the 4th plaintiff who was admittedly a minor was not represented by his next friend on record. The case as it was originally before the District Munsif was however dismissed not on any of these technical grounds but on another technical ground that all the Urallers of the plaint temple were not parties to the suit. That decree having been affirmed by the District Judge we had to interfere in S.A.