TRIVIKRAMA KONURAYA Vs. SANKARANARAYANA VAZHUNNAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had theadvantage of reading the judgments which are about to be delivered, and will confine myself to saying that on the facts of the present case I think that the Karnavan may be presumed to have ratified the kanom which he prematurely granted.

(2.) Inasmuch as the defendant never clearly raised the point on which he has succeeded till second appeal, we think that the parties must bear their own costs throughout. Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

(3.) The suit properties belong in Jenm to the Thazhakkat Mana of which the 6 defendant is the Karnavan. The then Karnavan of the Mana demised the suit properties on kanom to the 1 defendant's Karnavan (Raman) under Ex. II, dated 6 June, 1910 (it was renewal of a prior kanom). The same Karnavan executed in favour of the said Raman Ex. III on 20 April, 1919, by which Raman was authorised to hold the properties for a period of twelve years from 6 June, 1922, the date on which the period of twelve years under Ex. II would expire. The karnavan who executed Ex. III died in Vrichikam 1098 (November-December, 1922). The 6th defendant who then became the karnavan of the Mana granted the Melkanom deed, Ex. A, to the plaintiff on 28 May, 1923. The plaintiff instituted the original suit in 1925 for redemption of the demise of 1910 (Ex. II). Defendants 2 to 5 were tenants in possession under the 1st defendant, and neither they nortjhe 6 defendant--the karnavan of the Jenmi's Mana-- contested the suit. The plea of the contesting defendant No. 1 was that the renewal evidenced by Ex. III was valid and binding on the 6 defendant and on the plaintiff. Both the Lower Courts held against that contention of the 1 defendant and granted a decree for redemption in favour of the plaintiff. The 1 defendant has preferred this second appeal.