Puliankalath Bavanthil Tavazhi vs Puliankalath Makkissa Mannadiar and Others

Madhavan Nair, J.—The 1st defendant is the appellant. The parties to the suit belong to Ammalu Animal''s branch, which is one of the

branches of the Puliankalath Tavazhi. The 1st defendant is the karnavan. The suit is brought to remove him from the karnavanship, on account of

his mismanagement. He has been removed by both the lower Courts. The only argument, addressed on his behalf, by Mr. K.P.M. Menon. the

learned Counsel, is that he is a karar karnavan, appointed as such, under the karar, Exhibit A, and that according to the decisions of this Court, the

proper remedy for the plaintiffs is to approach the karnavan of the entire tarwad, for the redress of their grievances and not to file a suit, for

removing him from the karnavanship. The question depends upon the construction of Exhibit A, the karar. If ha has been appointed a karnavan

under the karar, then it seems that according to the decisions of this Court the plaintiffs'' suit cannot be maintained.

The plaintiffs'' suit is with reference to the properties, which have been set apart, for their menchilavu, under the karar, Exhibit A. This is made

clear by the statement, at the conclusion of the plaint, to this effect:

In the matter of giving food expenses, etc., and also relating to the Puliyankalath Tavazhi tarwad by 1st defendant and others, this let defendant is a

mismanager. Reliefs are being sought for against the 1st defendant and others for the same.

Under the karar separate properties have been allotted, for what maybe called the Bhakshana chilavu of the parties: in other words, the

maintenance of the parties; and properties are allotted to what may be called the menchilavu expenses; and, as I have said, the suit relates to the

removal of the 1st defendant from the management of the menchi. lavu properties only. Now those properties allotted for maintenance are referred

to in para. 1 of Exhibit A and the properties allotted for menchilavu expenses are referred to in para. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for

the respondent that these properties are the private properties of the Puliyankalath branch which has been in the management! of the branch

karanavan, and that Exhibit A mentions them, only with a view to maintain and continue the existing arrangements, so that it will be impossible for

the tarwad to resume the properties. That last sentence of paragraph 2 says:

But the private properties described in this paragraph should be kept in possession and enjoyed by the respective family groups; and such

properties shall never be resumed by the tarwad and it is provided that if any debts have to be raised on these private properties, it should be done

by all the adult male and female members of the respective family groups conjointly.

That these are private properties which have not been specially allotted for menchilavu under the karar (Exhibt A) appears to be clear from

para. 5, where the management of the properties are referred to. In this paragraph the properties mentioned in para. 1, which are tarwad

properties, are specially referred to and it is stated that if the joint managers do not manage the properties properly then recourse may be had to

the karnavan of the tarwad for the redress of the grievances. Nothing is stated in this paragraph about the Menchilavu properties mentioned in

para. 2. A perusal of Exhibit A has satisfied me that the menchilavu properties are the private properties of the various sub-branches of the

Puliyankalath Tavazhi and that Exhibit A cannot be said to have constituted the present 1st defendant, or his predecessors, as karnavans of these

properties. Under these circumstances it appears to me that the 1st defendant cannot be regarded as a manager appointed by a karar, and the

question whether a karar manager can be removed by means of a suit does not, therefore, really arise in this case. Probably, this was the reason

why no separate issue was framed, as regards this point in the lower Court. No doubt, as a question of law, it has been argued in both the lower

Courts. The District Judge also seems to have treated the case in the same light, for in para. 3 he says, in effect, that the 1st defendant cannot be

considered to be a manager appointed by a karar. The learned Judge states that from the evidence recorded in the case the ""sub-branch may be

regarded as a tarwad"" and adds that the suit Tavazhi is a tarwad, as ordinarily understood in Malabar Law and plaintiffs sue as junior members to

remove their de jure karnavan."" Under these circumstances, I think, the conclusion arrived at, by the learned Judge, is correct and that the decree

removing the 1st defendant from the management of the Menchilavu properties is also right.

But the decree, as it is worded, covers the tarwad properties, as well as the Menchilavu properties, which are in the possession and enjoyment

of the Puliyankalath branch. As I have said, the plaintiffs do not ask for any relief, with regard to the tarwad properties allotted for maintenance.

Therefore the decree is to be limited to the removal of the 1st defendant from the management of the Menchilavu properties allotted to Ammalu

Animal''s branch. The lower Court''s decree is to be modified, by inserting the words ""in respect of the properties, dealt with in paragraph 2 of the

marar"" after the word ""parties"" and by inserting the words ""in respect of the same"" after the word ""branch"" at the end of the 1st paragraph of the

decree.

The second appeal is dismissed with costs.