RADHAKRISHNA MENON Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this original petition was a junior member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad who was put in charge of the management of the properties as a stop gap arrangement in view of Ext. P4 karar, entered into between the members of the tarwad, for partition. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts. P1, P3 and P6 orders insisting that the petitioner should measure the levy in respect of the tarwad properties. The question that arises for consideration is as to what is the effect of an agreement between the members of the tarwad for dividing the tarwad properties and whether there will be a severance of the joint family status from the date of agreement or the same will be postponed to the actual division of the properties by metes and bounds. If there is a severance of the joint family status from the date of the karar, it goes without saying that the petitioner who was only a member of the tarwad cannot be asked to measure levy in respect of any property which is not set apart to his share.

(2.) As early as 30th November 1970 the petitioner and the other members of the tarwad entered into Ext. P4 karar for partitioning the tarwad properties. In Ext. P4 the petitioner was put in charge of the management of the properties till a partition deed is got executed. The 1st respondent Village Officer, Karimpuzha issued Ext. P1 levy notice to the petitioner demanding 32 quintals and 5 kgs. of paddy in respect of 8 acres and 9 cents of properties belonging to the tarwad for the 1973 Kanni crop. The petitioner filed Ext. P2 objections making it clear that Ext. P4 agreement for partition of the tarwad was already entered into by the members of the tarwad and in pursuance of the above agreement the properties were actually put in possession of the respective sharers, himself keeping possession of only 1 acre. The names of the members of the tarwad to whom properties were allotted in pursuance of Ext. P1 agreement were also given in Ext. P2 objections. But the 2nd respondent Taluk Supply Officer, Ottapalam by Ext. P3 rejected the petitioner's objections mainly on the ground that the whole cultivation was done by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext. P5 appeal before the 3rd, respondent District Supply Officer, Palghat But the same was dismissed by Ext. P6 order. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this original petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent District Supply Officer, Palghat. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit.

(3.) Shri T. R. Govinda Wariyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the effect of Ext. P4 karar entered into in November 1970 is that there was an actual severance of joint family status as soon as it was executed even though the properties were divided into metes and bounds only later. Learned counsel also contends that the fact that Ext. P4 was not registered is immaterial. According to the learned counsel, even if the petitioner did the cultivation in the whole of the properties in question, that cannot be a reason to make the petitioner liable for measuring the levy as because of Ext. P4 the petitioner ceased to have the power to dispose of the paddy obtained from the properties allotted to the other members of the tarwad. Learned counsel also has a contention that even if the contention of respondents 2 and 3 that actual partition of the tarwad had not taken place before the crop in question is accepted, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the levy since he was not the karnavan of the tarwad. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies on three decisions of the Supreme Court and a Bench decision of this Court. In Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan ( AIR 1960 SC 335 ) it is said :