Madhavan Nair, J - (1.)The suits in these two Second Appeals were instituted by the plaintiff to set aside the alienations of his property made by his father during his minority. The plaintiff, his two brothers and his father made a division of the family properties. The share that was allotted to the plaintiff was burdened with some debts. As the plaintiff was a minor at that time, his family affairs were looked after by his father as his guardian. To pay the debts due by the plaintiff, his father borrowed money from one Kanthamma under a mortgage, Ex. G-l, in 1906 and to pay off Kanthamma money was raised by executing sale deeds, Exs. C and D, of the plaintiffs property for a total consideration of Rs. 840. The defendants in the two suits who are the appellants in these Second Appeals represent the alienees.
(2.)The plaintiff's case is that these alienations are not binding on him. He contended that the debt due to Kanthamma under Ex. G-l was discharged later on in 1915 by selling property under Ex. G and as such the money got under Exs. C and D could not have been utilised for the purpose for which it is said to have been taken. The defendants contended that the amount taken under the sale deeds was appropriated for the purpose of discharging the debt due to Kanthamma. The purposes recited in both the sale deeds are the same. They are to the effect that money was required to discharge the debt due to Kanthamma and also for the expenses of the plaintiff's sister's marriage.
(3.)The learned District Munsif found that the money raised by these deeds was appropriated for discharging the debts as mentioned in the documents and that the defendants made enquiries sufficient to convince them that there was necessity for the loan. The plaintiff's suits were therefore dismissed. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that there is no evidence that any portion of the sum of Rs. 840 was utilised actually for either of the purposes mentioned in Exs. C and D. He also found on the evidence that no enquiries of any kind were made by the vendee before entering into the transactions. An argument was put before him that though the sum obtained was not utilised for paying Kanthamma's debt, it was utilised for the payment of other debts binding on the minor plaintiff. This was also found against by the learned Subordinate Judge. 1 may say that this justification for the sale was not put before me in argument. On these findings the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the decrees of the District Munsif.