MARUDAKONAR Vs. VEERAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the piaintiff who, as assignee of the rights of one Rangaswami Naidu under the suit mortgage bond Ex. A, sued to recover from the defendants and from the mortgaged properties a sum of Rs. 8,000.

(2.) The plaint followed the lines suggested by the assignment deed, as to the nature of the plaintiff's claim. Rangaswami Naidu had been conducting a kuri chit with 18 members and it was expected that the chit will run for 18 years. The first defendant Veerammal was one of the subscribers to that chit and was holding is tickets in respect of which Rs. 750 was payable per annum at the rate of Rs. 500 per chit. In the first auction held on 11 November, 1921, the first defendant became the successful bidder. As per the rules of the kuri chit she was willing to bid at a discount of more than Rs. 5,600 per ticket, with the result that out of the Rs. 9,000 which constituted the collection for the first year she received only Rs. 3,374 per ticket or Rs. 5,061 for the 1$ chits. The balance which was given up by way of discount was of course distributed amongst all the subscribers as profits of the chit. The chit-fund rules provide that a successful bidder at an auction should receive his bid amount only after executing a bond securing the payment of future instalments. The first defendant had apparently no property of her own, at any rate that is the basis on which Ex. A proceeds. The other defendants are her sons and as they had the benefit of the amount which she received as the result of her bid they agreed that their properties might be given as security for the purpose of eraabling Veerammal to draw the bid amount. Hence Ex. A was executed by Veerammal and five of her sons, the two youngest being minors represented by herself as guardian.

(3.) It is common ground that the chit continued to be conducted only for two more years. The auction that was to take place in November, 1924, did not take place, because it is alleged, a number of subscribers expressed themselves unable to pay their subscriptions. It is also said that they suggested that the chit may be closed. It is accordingly recited in Ex. B and it has also been attempted to be proved as part of the plaintiff's case, that all the subscribers met on the 9 of January, 1925, and entered into an arrangement providing that the chit might be stopped and that the non-benefited subscribers might be refunded the amounts so far subscribed by them and that the benefited or prize winning subscribers should refund with interest the amounts drawn by them subject to their right to take back the amount actually subscribed by them with a certain rate of interest. On this basis, it was worked out in Ex. B that up to the 9 of February, 1925, Veerammal was liable to pay to Rangaswami Naidu the chit-Conductor a sum of Rs. 4,177-2-0. The amount was calculated up to the 9 February, because it is the plaintiff's case that on the 9 January, it was resolved that all parties should be given one month's time to carry out the arrangement then arrived at After setting out the details above referred to and the process by which the amount to be paid was arrived at, Ex. B goes on to state: Although I made demands for the payment of this sum of Rs. 4,, 177-2-0 and interest from the said date according to the resolutions passed in the meeting and according to the terms of the deed, the same was not paid. The amount of interest due on Rs. 4,177-2-0 as per terms, is Rs. 407-13-0. Total amount of principal and interest in Rs. 4,584-15-0. For this sum of Rs. 4,584-15-0 I have assigned to you this day the said mortgage-deed in respect of chit fund.... the said mortgage-deed has been assigned to you. So you shall yourself recover with interest due as per terms of the said deed.Rs. 4,177-2-0 being the amount of principal and interest thereon till this date and subsequent interest thereon according to the terms of the deed.... In future myself or my heirs shall have no right or claim whatever in respect of the said mortgage-deed.