NARAYANAN NAIR Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 186 of 1121 on the file of the Trichur District Munsiffs Court are the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession of the properties shown in the schedule to the plaint on foot of title, the plaintiffs, who are Namboothiris, having obtained the properties, among others under the partition in their illom in the year 1120. The suit was filed in the year 1121. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. That decision was reversed by the Additional District Judge of Trichur in A.S. No. 297 of 1122.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 depend upon Ext. II dated 18.10.1118 which is a pattomchit executed by them in favour of one Subramanian Nambudiri of the plaintiffs illom and claim that they are lessees entitled to permanency under the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, VIII of 1118. The learned District Judge repelled the contention on the ground that under the provisions of the Cochin Nambudiri Act, which is applicable to the plaintiffs and Subramanian Nambudiri, as amended by Act XVI of 1118, it was beyond the competence of Subramanian Nambudiri to grant the lease evidenced by Ext. II because that Act prohibits a Karnavan from granting leases of immovable properties except in conjunction with, or with the consent of, the other major members of the family. It is not contended that this lease arrangement has had the concurrence or the consent of the other major members of the family as required by that statute.

(3.) Mr. Krishna Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellants contends before us that the position taken up by the learned Judge is unsustainable for various reasons, firstly that the lease in this case was not by a karnavan, but by a manager appointed by a court, secondly that the amending Act, XVI of 1118 which was passed on 6.11.1118 would not affect the vested rights already held by his clients under Ext. II from 18.10.1118 even though S. 1 of the amending Act provides that it would be deemed to have come into force on 22.7.1118. A third position taken up by Mr. Krishna Iyer is that S.4(d) of the Verumpattamdars Act provides for permanency notwithstanding any law to the contrary and this provision would exclude the operation even of the amending Act XVI of 1118.