The appellants are the sons, the grandson and the grand-daughter of the 1st defendant who is the manager and karnavan of a Nambudiri illom consisting of himself and eleven other members. They were sued by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of subscriptions paid to a kuri organised by the 1st defendant and by the 2nd defendant the only other adult male member of the illom at that time. The kuri was organised with a view to make money to pay off debts due by the illom, amounting to a sum of Rs. 4,000. Into the details of this kuri it is unnecessary to enter. Apparently it was intended to be carried on for 20 instalments. But it came to an end after the 12th instalment. Accordingly the plaintiffs who were subscribers sued to recover back their money with interest. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the transaction was so extremely imprudent that the appellants should not be saddled with the liability for the 1st defendants adventure. He has referred to the observations of Ramesam, J., in Natesa Iyer v. Sahasranama Ayyar (53 M.L.J. 550). If no doubt this was a case of a father or manager mortgaging the family property for the purpose of subscribing to a chit fund, we should agree with the learned Judge that such a transaction was not one which would affect the interests of the other members of the family. But we have not here to deal with a case of a father alienating the family property for a purely speculative purpose. The learned Subordinate Judge has indeed found that the kuri was in fact calculated to be a beneficial transaction for the members of the illom and he points out that there were certain features of it giving an advantage to the organisers of kuri usually not found in these transactions. He has also found that the kuri was started for the purpose of paying off debts which did in fact exist and that the subscribers, at all events P.W. 1 who was a subscriber, made proper enquiries into this matter. It is not suggested that there is anything illegal about this kuri and we think it cannot be suggested that it has the slightest trace of immorality about it. That being so, the organisation of the kuri was a transaction into which we think the manager of this illom could properly enter.

Then it has been argued that this kuri was a new business started by the manager, and Sanyasi Charan Mandal v. Krishnadhan Banerji (49 Cal. 560 = 16 L.W. 536 (P.C.), a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council, has been invoked. But we think that the principle of that case has no bearing upon the facts of this case. No new business was started when this kuri was organised. The case therefore comes down to this: can subscribers who parted with their money recover it on the footing that the illom has had the benefit of their money and that the manager of the kuri has not carried out his contract We think that they are undoubtedly entitled on the simple ground that the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the illom has had the benefit of the money. For these reasons we think that the finding of the lower Court should be upheld, and this appeal should be dismissed with costs.

For the same reasons A.S. No. 315 of 1931 is dismissed with costs.

The Civil Revision Petition is not pressed and is dismissed with costs of the Official Receiver.