PULIANKALATH BAVANTHIL TAVAZHI Vs. PULIANKALATH MAKKISSA MANNADIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1 defendant is the appellant. The parties to the suit belong to Ammalu Animal's branch, which is one of the branches of the Puliankalath Tavazhi. The 1st defendant is the karnavan. The suit is brought to remove him from the karnavanship, on account of his mismanagement. He has been removed by both the lower Courts. The only argument, addressed on his behalf, by Mr. K.P.M. Menon. the learned Counsel, is that he is a karar karnavan, appointed as such, under the karar, Exhibit A, and that according to the decisions of this Court, the proper remedy for the plaintiffs is to approach the karnavan of the entire tarwad, for the redress of their grievances and not to file a suit, for removing him from the karnavanship. The question depends upon the construction of Exhibit A, the karar. If ha has been appointed a karnavan under the karar, then it seems that according to the decisions of this Court the plaintiffs suit cannot be maintained.

(2.) The plaintiffs suit is with reference to the properties, which have been set apart, for their menchilavu, under the karar, Exhibit A. This is made clear by the statement, at the conclusion of the plaint, to this effect: In the matter of giving food expenses, etc., and also relating to the Puliyankalath Tavazhi tarwad by 1 defendant and others, this let defendant is a mismanager. Reliefs are being sought for against the 1st defendant and others for the same.

(3.) Under the karar separate properties have been allotted, for what maybe called the Bhakshana chilavu of the parties: in other words, the maintenance of the parties; and properties are allotted to what may be called the menchilavu expenses; and, as I have said, the suit relates to the removal of the 1 defendant from the management of the menchi. lavu properties only. Now those properties allotted for maintenance are referred to in para. 1 of Exhibit A and the properties allotted for menchilavu expenses are referred to in para. 2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that these properties are the private properties of the Puliyankalath branch which has been in the management! of the branch karanavan, and that Exhibit A mentions them, only with a view to maintain and continue the existing arrangements, so that it will be impossible for the tarwad to resume the properties. That last sentence of paragraph 2 says: But the private properties described in this paragraph should be kept in possession and enjoyed by the respective family groups; and such properties shall never be resumed by the tarwad and it is provided that if any debts have to be raised on these private properties, it should be done by all the adult male and female members of the respective family groups conjointly.