(1.) In this case the District Munsif and the lower Appellate Court have awarded to the plaintiffs maintenance, the lower Appellate Court at rather a higher rate than the District Munsif. The plaintiffs are the junior members of a tarwad. The first defendant is the karnavan of the tar wad. The second defendant is the next to him for that position. The decree has been made for arrears of maintenance, at the rate which has been found by the Subordinate Judge to be the proper rate, personally against the karnavan in the following terms; that the first defendant personally and as karnavan of his tarwad do pay.
(2.) This form of decree does not seem to me to be right. I see no reason for a personal decree against the karnavan which would involve the right of the junior members of this tarwad to arrest him if he did not pay forthwith, although it may be he may have none of the property in his hands available for immediate payment. We have had several decrees, which have come before this Court, looked up and I have found none in which that form of decree has been used. In Second Appeal No. 1036 of 1918 from the South Malabar district, the form of decree approved by this Court was that this Court doth order and decree that the first defendant, as karnavan and manager of his tarwad and from the income of the tarwad properties and also from the properties of the tarwad, do pay the plaintiff Rs. 216 for his maintenance due for the past three years.
(3.) In Appeal No. 48 of 1916 from the same district, the decree approved by this Court was that the plaintiffs do recover from them and the defendants tarwad Rs. 1,136, being the amount, of maintenance for the plaint period, that is, six years.