KOZHIKKOT PUTHIA KOVILAGATH MANAVEDAN ALIAS ANUJAN RAJAH, AVL , Vs. KOZHIKKOT PUTHIA KOVILAGATH VIAYATHEN SREEDEVI ALIAS VALIA THAMBURATTI, AVL,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal from decree in O.S. No. 16 of 1925, Subordinate Judge, Calicut. The parties to this suit are members of the family of the Zamorin of Calicut, but for the purposes of this appeal it is unnecessary to detail the complicated rules of succession prevailing in that family. In essence the suit is simple, and the learned vakils on either side have proceeded (and, in our opinion, rightly proceeded)on the assumption that it is a suit for the removal of the Karnavan of an ordinary Malabar tarwad, coupled with the prayer that he be ordered to furnish general accounts for the period of his office. In this family, the Karnavan happens to be a woman, the 1 defendant. The 2nd defendant is her son, alleged to have acted as her manager and to have imposed his will upon her to the detriment of the rerwad in general. Defendants 3 and 4 are the remaining members of the particular branch descended by way of the motherhood of the first defendant (the tavazhi in Malayali phraseology). It is alleged in the plaint That by various acts of malfeasance (set forth at great length therein, para. 12-A to D.D) 1 and 2nd defendants in collusion have misappropriated funds belonging to the family in general, and have devoted them to the 1 defendant's particular branch. The plaintiffs are three junior members of the family, and they have brought all the other members into the suit by impleading them as defendants.

(2.) In the course of the suit, the 1 defendant ceased to be karnavan because by the family rule of succession she moved to a higher sphere. Therefore there was no longer any question of removing her (Prayer A in the plaint), and it only remained to consider how far prayers B and C were sustainable directing defendants 1 and 2 to render all accounts of receipts and expenses of the family from 22nd September, 1915, and to pay whatever sums might be found due to the family in general from the personal property of defendants 1 and 2 and out of the tavazhi property of defendants 1 to 4.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has held on the authority of Kenath Puthen Vittil Tavazhi V/s. Narayanan (1904) ILR 28 M 182: 14 MLJ 415 (FB) that the karnavan is not liable to pay to the tarwad any surplus income; and on the authority of Karunakara Menon V/s. Kutti Krishna Menon (1916) 38 IC 666 that an anandravan cannot ordinarily sue a karnavan to render accounts of his management. The right of such junior members is confined to suing for maintenance, to suing for cancellation of any transaction entered into by the karnavan to the detriment of the family, and to suing for his removal. As incidental to the relief of removal from management and only in that way, it is competent to anandravans to call upon the karnavan to render accounts. But that is allowed not with a view that the anandravans may recover from the karnavan the amount found due, such a remedy being directly opposed to the inherent status of the karnavan, and is unheard of, but simply in order that the extent to the loss suffered by the tarwad at the hands of the karnavan may be ascertained with a view to his removal. But when there is no question of his removal there is clearly no liability on him to render accounts. To hold otherwise would be to reduce the karnavan to the position of a trustee which he certainly is not.