AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Subordinate Judge finds that there was no fraud or collusion on the part of the Uralers who were defendants in Small Cause Suit No. 377
of 1883, and holds relying on the ease in Kelu v. Paidel ILR (1386) M. 473 that the plaintiffs are accordingly not entitled to a decree. It is
contended that it is not incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove fraud, and that it is sufficient for them to show that the wages decreed were not really
due, and reliance is placed on the Full Bench dicision in Ittiachan v. Vellappan ILR (1888) M. 484 and other cases which followed it.
It was pointed out in Kelu v. Paide ILR (1386) M. 473 that there is a distinction, between the position of those who are possible future Uralers
or have a reversionary Uraima right as the plaintiffs have, and the Anandravans of an ordinary tarwad having a present interest in the property. In
the one case the Devasom is fully represented by its Uralers; in the other the tarwad is the substantial defendant. A mere reversioner or other
person prospectively entitled is not crdinarily permitted to set astde a decree against the representative for the time being of the inheritance except
on the ground of fraud.
In the present case the Subordinate Judge assigns sufficient reason for finding that there was no fraud, and following the decision in Kelu v.
Paidell ILR (1386) M. 473 we must dismiss the appeal with costs.