MATAMULLA MANIKOTH PATTAN CHANDU Vs. KUTTIYIL RAYIRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We accept the finding. In the light of it the facts we have to deal with are that the 2nd plaintiff has obtained a melcharth from five out of the seven uralars, of the two remaining uralars one having been and the other, the 2nd defendant, not having been consulted. The 2nd defendant, as now appears, is the seventh uralar. The only question remaining is whether the melcharth is invalidated by the failure, to consult him.

(2.) The general rule that uralars are entitled to be consulted before any act is clone in the management of the trust property is well established. It is, however, argued that this general rule is subject to an exception, when the omission to consult the uralar is attributable to his possession of an interest which would disqualify him from giving an independent opinion.

(3.) In the present case the evidence is stated by the lower Appellate Court as being that plaintiff's witness 1 asked the 2nd defendant to take a renewal of his lease and the 2nd defendant said he would not as he could not pay the arrears of rent already due. It was after this that the suit melcharth was given to the 2nd plaintiff to enable him to oust the 2nd defendant from possession of the property.