1. The suit is by two Uralers to redeem a kanom. The 1st defendant pleads a renewal by the Uralers. The plaintiffs impeach the validity of the renewal on the ground that the 1st plaintiff was not consulted. But the 1st plaintiff was not an Uralan at the time of the renewal. His karnavan was the Uralan. But the plaintiffs contend that he was a lunatic and that the 1st plaintiff was by operation of law the Uralan in his place. The observations of Subrahmanya Aiyar and Bashyam Iyengar JJ. in Vidhyapurna Tirthaswami v. Vidhyanidhi Tirthaswami I. L. R. (1904) M. 435 are against this view. Lunacy does not divest the estate already vested or the right of management, though it may be a ground for removal of the lunatic from the office of trustee which is hereditary. The 1st plaintiff not being a trustee at the time of the renewal, the renewal cannot be deemed to be invalid because he was not consulted.
2. It is now urged for the first time in second appeal that the 2nd plaintiff has not signed the renewal deed though it purports to be in his name also, and that it is bad on that account. The document purports to be in the name of the 2nd plaintiff as well though it is signed only by the 13th defendant. It may be the latter had authority to sign for the 2nd plaintiff. We cannot allow the question of the absence of the 2nd plaintiff's signature to be raised now when the 1st defendant may be in a position to explain it as due to the 13th defendant having been clothed with due authority to act for all.
3. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.