MANIKKAVACHAKA DESIKA GNANA SAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI; MANIKKAVACHAKA DESIKA GNANA SAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI; SRINIVASAPILLAI Vs. SABAPATIYA PILLAI; PSSRINIVASA PILLAY; MANIKKAVACHAKA DESIKA GNANA SAMBANDA PANDARA SANNADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first of these cases, Appeal No. 159 of 1904, was remanded to the subordinate Court for further evidence as to the circumstances under which the loans in question were contracted. The record of the evidence runs to very great length, but much of it consists of minute and wearisome cross-examination about unimportant matters which has not been referred to in argument and has only served to waste the time of the Court below and saddle the parties with unnecessary expense. Unfortunately, there has been great delay in the hearing of this appeal but that has had this advantage that we have been enabled to deal with two other appeals against another decree of the Subordinate Court, in which the evidence taken on remand in this case has been treated as the evidence in the case, because both suits really have raised practically the same questions and one judgment will suffice for the decision of both and in giving our own conclusions on the evidence taken on remand we now have the advantage of the careful consideration of the evidence by the Subordinate Judge and of the conclusions at which he has arrived.

(2.) The question in the two appeals relates to the liability of the Dharmapuram Mutt for certain borrowings by late leader, Pandara Sannadhi. It appears that there had been a lengthy litigation as to the right of the Dharmapuram Mutt to nominate the head of the Tiruppanandal Mutt. This was decided in the time of the last Pandara Sannadhi but one. Before his death, he nominated one Ponnambala to be the head of the Tiruppanandal Mutt; he died before the investiture of the nominee. His successor, Sivagnana, who is also dead, set up that the nomination was incomplete and the nominee unfit and a lengthy litigation ensued in which Sivagnana s nominee, Saminatha, was for a time successful, with the result that for some years he obtained possession of the Tiruppanandal Mutt s properties. Ultimately, however, a decision of the Privy Council was given against him in the year 1394 and execution was taken out and he was called upon to account for and to deliver over to his opponent, Ponnambala, the properties of the Tiruppanandal Mutt which had come into his hands. This was the state of things when the transactions which have given rise to the present litigation arose.

(3.) The first transaction we have to deal with is the borrowing of two sums of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 3,000 by the Pandara Sannadhi of the Dharmapuram Mutt on promissory-notes, dated the 26th November 1894. One of them is in issue in Appeal No. 159 and the other in Appeal No. 85. In the second suit, it is sought to declare that a mortgage decree obtained against the deceased Pandara Sannadhi is not binding on the properties of the mutt, and it has not been disputed before us that such a suit will properly lie if the facts are such as are stated. With regard to this borrowing of Rs. 10,000, neither of these promissory-notes say for what purpose the money was borrowed. It is merely recited that it was for Mutt purposes. The case of the plaintiffs in the one case and the defendants in the other, whom it will be convenient to speak of as the creditors, is that it was borrowed for the purpose of necessary buildings in the Mutt. There were three such buildings mentioned in the evidence, namely, the puja mantapam, central hall and the kitchen. The Subordinate Judge has given good reasons for disbelieving the evidence that any such expenditure was contemplated at the time this money was borrowed in November 1894. There are the accounts of the mutt, Exhibit CC series, which show that the expenditure on the kitchen did not begin till July 1895 and Exhibit CC6 only shows an expenditure of Rs. 11 on the central hall in 1895 and Exhibit CC5 shows that the puja mantapam bad been finished in March 1894. Of the four witnesses of the creditors, two are their dependents. The only conclusion that can be come to is that it is not satisfactorily shown that there were any buildings going on or contemplated and consequently that it was not necessary to borrow any money and that the creditors have failed to show that there was any necessity for borrowing this Rs. 10,000 for building. They have also failed to show that they made any satisfactory inquiries. The Mutt contends further that it is actually shown by the accounts that this sum of Rs. 10,000 was utilised to help Saminatha to make payments into Court in respect of the monies of the Tiruppanandal Mutt, for which he had become accountable in execution Petition No 79 of 1894, already referred to. This is exceedingly probable but it is not necessary to decide the point definitely. It is quite sufficient for the disposal of this case to say that the creditors have not succeeded in discharging the onus which was upon then of showing that these monies were borrowed for the purpose of erecting necessary buildings and that they have no evidence showing they had any good reason for believing the money was borrowed for these purposes.