UNNIKRISHNA MENON Vs. SANKARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise for decision in this case: (i) whether the karanavan of a marumakkathayam tarwad can be compelled to render accounts for the income of the tarwad and (ii) the period for which he can be held liable under the Indian Limitation Act.

(2.) The plaintiff, a junior member of a marumakkathayam tarwad, sued for partition of tarwad properties and one of the items sought to be partitioned was a sum of Rs, 30,000/- alleged to have been misappropriated by the first defendant, the karanavan, from the income of the tarwad. The first defendant denied liability to account for such income. The court below held that the first defendant would be held liable in respect of the specific items disclosed by the accounts to have been misappropriated by him within a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The point raised in this appeal by the plaintiff is that the court below erred in limiting the period to three years and that the same should have been six years under Art.120 of the Limitation Act. The first defendant by a memorandum of cross objections attacks this part of the decree and contends that he cannot be made liable to render accounts of the income of tarwad properties.

(3.) The main question for decision is the one raised in the memorandum of cross objections. It is useful in this connection to refer to the relevant averment in the plaint, which is contained in Para.7. It is stated: