NARAYANAN NAMBOORIPAD Vs. GOPALAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs through their next friend for a declaration that the compromise decree passed in O.S. 21/1124 of the Anjikaimal District Court is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and their Illom and for ancillary reliefs.

(2.) Plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendants 3 to 7 are the members of an undivided Namboodiri illom known as Cheruvally Swaroopam of which 3rd defendant is the karnavan. The 3rd defendant is said to be illiterate, dull headed and incapable of management and the 4th defendant was therefore managing the illom affairs under an udampady Ext. P1. The illom owned considerable properties in the Cochin area of the former TC. State. While the fourth defendant was in management the 1st defendant was appointed as the manager to look after the illom properties under an unregistered karar Ext. P20 dated 4th Edavam 1123. The 1st defendant took over the management on 8th Edavam 1123. The karar had provided that he should not incur any debts and that he should collect pattom, michavarom, Jenmikaram etc., and discharge the debts. Subsequently, a registered karar Ext. P15 to the same effect was also executed on 6th Mithunam 1123. Not long after the 1st defendant took over the management, it was found that he was not properly managing the illom affair and that he was mis-managing and mis-appropriating the income of the illom. So defendants 3 and 4 issued a notice on 20-12-1123 terminating his managership and calling upon him to render accounts. No accounts were rendered; but the 1st defendant instituted the suit O.S. 21/1124 against the Swaroopam claiming a sum of Rs. 5,250/- from the illom. Ext. P4 is the plaint in the suit. Rs. 140/- was claimed as arrears of salary and another sum of Rs. 5217-3-0 was claimed as amounts which he had expended for the day to day expenses of the illom, for some medical treatment and for certain other ceremonies.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in this suit is that the entire claim was false and that no amounts were due to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs in this case were defendants 3 and 6 to 10 respectively in that suit. Defendants 3 and 4 in this suit were defendants 1 and 2 & defendants 5 and 6 were defendants 4 and 5. The 7th defendant in this suit was the 11th defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 in this suit in turn had filed a suit O.S. 120/1124 against the present 1st defendant for the rendition of accounts for the period the 1st defendant was in management and a sum of Rs. 4000/- was claimed from him. While these two suits were pending the 5th defendant in this suit filed O.S. 91/1950 to remove the present defendants 3 and 4 from Karanavasthanam. A receiver was appointed in the suit. That receiver was impleaded in O.S. 21 of 1124 also. Defendants 3 to 5 and the receiver the 13th defendant had filed written statement contesting the claim of the 1st defendant. Ext. P5 (b) is the written statement of defendants 1 and 2, Ext. P5 is the written Statement of 4th defendant and Ext. P5 (a) is the written statement of the receiver. The 7th defendant the mother was the guardian of the minors.