KALATHILE VALAPPIL POOKKOTH MAMMAD Vs. CHEERAMOOLAYIL POOKOTH ALEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The key note of my approach to this appeal, the facts of which will be stated presently and briefly, is that a Judge should remember, in applying the law to a given set of facts, that what is expedient for the community concerned is "the secret root from which the law draws all the juices of life ................ Every important principle which is developed by litigation is in fact and at bottom the result of more or less definitely understood views of public policy; most generally to be sure ...... the unconscious result of instinctive preferences and inarticulate convictions, but none the less traceable to views of public policy in the last analysis" (Helmes, The Common Law, 35-6).

(2.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. No brought a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent, of a building now in the possession of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is also stated to be in possession although his exact status is not clear. Defendants 3 and 4 are two members of the thavazhi of the plaintiff who claim that there was a maintenance allotment of this item in their favour by Mayan, their direct uncle although, initially, the case put forward by defendants 3 and 4 was that the suit property belonged to Mayan exclusively and that he had allotted the property for their maintenance. The case of Mayan's exclusive ownership has been negatived and the allotment for maintenance by Mayan as thavazhi karnavan has been upheld. We have to proceed on that footing in second appeal and arguments have been addressed to me on that basis.

(3.) The tavazhi, of which Mayan was the karnavan on whose death the plaintiff because the karnavan, had for fewer members at the time the suit item was set apart for the maintenance of defendants 3 and 4 and their mother Ummachu, the sister of Mayan. Of course, the family multiplied in numbers and now they are 70 strong (or weak ). It owns only two items of properties, one of which is the suit item, a shop building yielding a rent of Rs.140/-, and the other a small item of property yielding an income of only Rs. 10/-. Thus, this family of 70 members has an annual income of Rs. 150/- of which Rs. 140/- is being appropriated by two members viz., defendants 3 and 4. This is obviously an iniquitous situation and this iniquity is very relevant to the decision of the case as I will presently indicate.