PANGI ACHAN Vs. PNBHEEMAN ACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant sues on a melcharth obtained from Dharman Achan, the late karnavan of his and respondents tarwad, and the only question for determination now is whether this melcharth is valid or not, respondents contention being that Dharman Achan was not empowered to grant such a melcharth owing to the provisions of the family karar, Exhibit I. This karar Was executed by Dharman Achan, who was then karnavan, the second anandravan, and the two senior ladies of the tarwad, and we have the finding of fact, which we must accept, that it was executed at the edom or family house and was approved by all the members of the family, except the senior anandravan, who is now 26th respondent. About 6 months before granting the suit melcharth to plaintiff Dharman Achan purported to cancel the karar by the notice Exhibit II, and it is contended for appellant that he was entitled to cancel Exhibit I, which was merely a delegation of part of his rights as karnavan to three other members of the tarwad. While conceding that under a family karar a karnavan s powers of alienation may be restricted; Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar contends that when the karar relates merely to a delegation of powers by the karnavan it is competent to the karnavan to revoke it at any time, more especially in a case where it has not been assented to by all the members of the tarwad, although he does not go so far as to contend that any family karar to which the karnavan is a party could be revoked by the latter without the consent of the other members of the tarwad.

(2.) So long as the karar, Exhibit I, was in force, and admittedly it was in force and was acted upon for 14 years (i.e., until the revocation in 1907), the karnavan Dharman Achan had no power to grant a melcharth for tarwad property without the concurrence of the other signatories to the karar, and consequently the sole question for determination now is whether the revocation (Exhibit II) is valid.

(3.) Ordinarily, of course, a karnavan has the right to grant a melcharth, but it has always been held that it is in the power of the tarwad to limit the ordinary powers of a karnavan, and this limitation may be effected by a family karar [Kanna Pisharodi v. Kombi Achan 8 M. 381] which the karnavan is not entitled of his own authority to set aside [Komu v. Krishna 11 M. 134]. The usual object of a karar, whereby a karnavan s ordinary powers are restricted, is to settle family disputes or to provide against mismanagement by an incompetent or unscrupulous karnavan, and is often a means of averting a suit to remove the karnavan from his office. When, therefore, a karnavan is a consenting party to such a karar he is bound by its terms, unless the other contracting parties are willing to release him from his obligations, or he can show that the karar is no longer beneficial to the interests of the tarwad. This view is in accordance with a long series of decisions of this Court (vide Moore s Malabar Law, pages 117 et seq.).