Appeal from the decree in A. S. No. 25 of 1920, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapaiam, (O.S No. 326 of 1917), on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ottapaiam.
Plaintiffs sue to recover Rs. 2,917-3-2, due under two hypothecation deeds, executed to them, in 1905, by one Pappi Antrajanam. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit for Rs. 1235-6-9 and defendants 2 and 3 appeal. Defendants 2 and 3 were the minor sons of a Nambudri defendant since deceased. He wasan idiot and deaf. Pappi Antrajanam is his second wife and step mother of defendants 2 and 3. The plaint sets forth that at the time when she executed these mortgages, Pappi Antrajanam was the “manager” (sic) of the defendant's mana, on her own behalf and as guardian of the three defendants. The defendants in their written statement, besides alleging fraud, contended that Pappi Antrajanam had no authority to execute any document whatever. The minors were not under her guardianship.
The only issue framed is whether the suit bonds are valid and supported by consideration. The District Munsif has assumed, throughout his judgment, that pappi Antrajanam had authority to borrow and confines himself to the question of justifiable necessity. The omission to discuss, whether she was capable of borrowing, is made the second ground of appeal in the Lower Appellate Court. The learned Subordinate Judge found that she was in a very necessitous condition and,
“had to incur debts for maintenance and house-hold expenses, for a period of eight months and in any view of the law applicable to the case, whether the ordinary Hindu Law obtaining on the East coast, or the special Nambudri Law applicable to the case of a Nambudri female in management (as to which the law is not quite settled): See Ramachandra Aiyar's Malabar Law, Sect. 88 and Topics of Malabar Law 12 M.L.J, 180, such debts would be binding on the defendants.”
The correctness of these observations is the point for determination in this appeal. There can be no doubt that by the law of the Mitakshara, the wife of an idiot has no right, to mortgage the estate of his sons, in order to provide for the family maintenance. Nor is it altogether correct to say the special Nambudri law is not quite settled. The whole question of Nambudri law is very fully discussed in Vishnu Nambudri v. Akkamma(1), and Vasudevan v. The Secretary of State for India(2), Nambudries are governed by Hindu Law, which generally speaking is the law laid down by the author of the Mitakshara except, so far as it is shown to have been modified by usage, or custom having the force of law. Thus, in dealing with Nambudries, the Courts will apply the ordinary Hindu Law, unless either party can show that a special usage, or custom unknown to the ordinary Hindu Law has been established by precedent, or unless such party can prove such custom in the trial itself. It was, therefore, open to the plaintiffs, in the present case, either to cite authority, or to adduce evidence, establishing their proposition that Pappi Antrajanam had authority to mortgage the estate, by virtue of special Nambudri custom. I do not find that, when the case originated, this point was even present to their minds. They relied upon the fact that, while actually managing the household and looking after the minors, she had no other recourse but to borrow. Therefore, no evidence has been led to show (as now argued), that the last efficient member of a Nambudri family, irrespective of sex, assumes the right of management, with all the incidents appertaining to that right, in Hindu Law. Plaintiffs have not attempted to prove such special custom in the trial itself, and can only succeed at this stage, if they can cite precedents which establish their contention. In Vasudevan v. The Secretary of State for India, where the contention that the sole surviving female has all the powers of the surviving male, was under discussion, Mr. F. Wilkinson, an experienced Judge in South Malabar had held that a Nambudri widow, who is the sole surviving member of her illom, is in the same position as any other Hindu widow (p. 166); and this opinion was affirmed by a Bench of this Court (p. 171). Nor is there any ruling to the contrary effect (cf. Sundara Aiyar's Malabar Law, Sect. 131 p. 219, Edition 1922). Thus, plaintiffs cannot rely upon precedent. It is urged, on behalf of plaintiffs, that they should be allowed an opportunity, at this stage, to call witnesses, in order to prove the custom, which they set up. This would involve an amendment of the plaint (unless much more is read into the English word “manager” than the parties ever intended. That they did not intend the connotation now pressed is shown by the issues and conduct of the trial). I hold that parties prima facie governed by Hindu Law, must make it quite clear in their pleading and when issues are framed and witnesses are summoned, that they intend to prove a special custom; otherwise, the trial will be conducted throughout, on the assumption, that the ordinary Hindu Law applies. I see no reason to allow the plaintiffs to prove this matter of fact, at this stage. It is not contended, on their behalf, that the de facto guardianship of Pappi Antrajanam gave her any right to mortgage the estate. A de facto guardian is scarcely distinguishable from an intermeddler; he may act from the best of motives and in the best interests of the minors and their estate; but he is equipped, with no special authority, and the validity of his acts depends upon their condonation. Most of the discussion in the Courts below is only relevant, as showing that Pappi Antrajanam had moral justification for her acts; it does not show that she had legal authority. I hold, therefore, that either as guardian, or as surviving efficient member, she had no power to execute the suit mortgages and the suit must be dismissed with costs throughout. The appeal is allowed.
Judgment in S. A. No. 302 of 1922.
For the reasons given in S. A. No. 7 of 1922, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Only one vakil's fee in this and in S. A. No. 7 of 1922.
K.V.SS. A. No. 7 of 1932 allowed: S. A. No. 302 of 1922 dismissed.