HARIHARA AIYAR Vs. UKKANDAN VARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the appellant is the legal representative of the 1 defendant. The 1 defendant was holding certain lands on a kanom demise under the Eravaimangalam Devaswom in South Malabar. The 1 plaintiff obtained a melcharth and brought the suit to redeem the kanom on the strength of the melcharth.

(2.) The only plea raised against the plaintiff is that his melcharth is not a valid melcharth. This devaswom is represented by three uralans belonging to three Namburdi Moms in South Malabar. The melcharth was granted by two uralans, as to whose position as uralans there is no dispute, and by the 6 defendant, who is not the senior-most member of the melazhiath illom, one of the Moms in which the uraima right is vested, but is only the second man in the Mom. The eldest man now living, in that Mom is D.W. No. 1. 2. It is contended by the kanomdar that as the eldest man was not consulted in granting the melcharth, it should be held to be not valid and binding on the trust, and the plaintiff's suit must, therefore, be dismissed as not maintainable. The circumstances under which the 6th defendant happened to represent the melazhiath manakkal illom in granting the melcharth are these. The eldest man D.W. No. 1 while he was in management of the Mom affairs as karnavan of the illom and the uralan of this devaswom, was convicted for cheating and sent to jail under a sentence of 2 months rigorous imprisonment. When he came out of the jail, he does not seem to have been accepted into the caste to which he belonged, namely, the Nambudri caste in South Malabar. Nambudris do not generally take back into caste men who have been sent to jail and who subsisted in jail, on the jail diet. D.W. No. 1 admits that after he came back from the jail, he did not enter his Mom or touch the tank; he practically did nothing as the karnavan except trying to manage some of the properties and execute some of the decrees in favour of the Mom. As regards the temple what he says is: I do not go to the temple or touch the temple tank. I do not enter the Mom house and do not get priests to officiate at the ceremonies.

(3.) When this man was in jail the management of the illom and devaswom seems to have been taken by the next senior, the 6 defendant, and even after he came back from jail, this management seems to have continued. No doubt the elder man was trying to dispute the 6 defendant's management. But as a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that the 6 defendant was in actual management. The elder man tried to assert his rights in Courts of law, but in the three instances that came before the Courts evidenced by Exhibits B, C and D, he failed to get recognised as representing the illom.