1 In S. A. Nos. 1245 and 1236 of 1960 the decrees passed by the two subordinate courts in O. S. 1085/1122, accepting the claim of the plaintiff therein are under challenge; and in S. A. 1246/60 the decrees passed by the two subordinate courts accepting the claim of the plaintiff in O. S. 929/1120 are again under attack.

2 As there are two suits wherein more or less similar questions arise for consideration, I will refer to the array of parties in the course of this judgment, with reference to the position occupied by them in O. S. 1085. The other litigation is O. S. No. 929/1120. Both these litigations were finally disposed of by the learned Munsif of Quilon.

3 The circumstances under which these two litigations came to be launched may be briefly narrated. The property comprised in schedule B to the plaint in O. S. 1085/1122 belonged to one Sulaiman Kunju. He was a subscriber to a chitty conducted by defendants 1 and 2. He seems to have been subscribing for two classes of tickets in the said chitty, namely tickets A and B. On 15-9-1099 Sulaiman Kunju prized a B class ticket; and for guaranteeing the regular payments of future subscriptions, he executed a chitty hypothecation bond in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document