(KOZHHIKOT PUTHIYA KOVILAGATH PATINHAREKETTU TAVAZHIYIL KUTTIMBATTI THAMBUVATTI S SON) MANAVEDAN Vs. PKMANAVEDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dated 23 January 1936 dismissing an application for appointment of a receiver in respect of the properties belonging to Patinharekettu tavazhi of Pudia Kovilagam and for a temporary injunction restraining defendants 2 to 5 from interfering with the management of the receiver. The application was made by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1935, a suit for removal of the managers appointed by a karar of 1090 M.E. (1914 A. D.) which vested the management of a tavazhi properties in five persons, namely the four seniormost male members and the seniormost female members. Before this karar there was another karar in 1895 which appointed the seniormost male member and the seniormost female member as managers subject to certain restrictions. The tavazi properties were managed under these two karars from 1895 till the date of suit, that is to say, for nearly 40 years. Till about 1933 there does not appear to have been any serious dissatisfaction with the management of the tavazhi properties by the karar managers. There was some difficulty experienced in paying the maintenance amounts due to the junior members of the tavazhi and several suits were filed against the managers for maintenance and there was even a suit for removal of the managers. Better counsels however prevailed and the members of the family came to some kind of settlement according to which one V. Krishna Menon was appointed power of attorney agent by all the managers to collect the amounts due to the tavazhi and to meet the expenses.

(2.) The management by Krishna Menon began in July 1933, but soon afterwards the seniormost female member of the tavazhi, who was one of the managers, is said to have become dissatisfied with the management by Krishna Menon. In any case she revoked the authority given by her, along with the other joint managers, so far as she was concerned. Thereupon in 1934 Krishna Menon and the other four managers instituted a suit for a declaration that in spite of the revocation of authority by defendant 5, Krishna Menon was still entitled to manage the affairs of the tavazhi under the power of attorney granted to him. That suit was dismissed, and during the pendency of the suit Krishna Menon himself was apparently unwilling to carry on the management on account of the obstructions put in his way, and he wanted to be relieved of his responsibility and was willing to hand over the records and moveables in his possession and to render accounts. During the pendency of the suit it would also appear that three of the male managers also went over to the side of the lady manager and these four acting in concert appointed one Ramunni Menon as manager in place of Krishna Menon. It was at this juncture that the present suit was filed by a junior member of the tavazhi charging the karar managers with various acts of negligence, mismanagement and fraud and praying for" removal of all of them and for taking accounts of the management and for appointment by Court of a receiver as manager.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge appears to have been of opinion that it was not competent for the Court to appoint an interim receiver so long as there were persons in the tavazhi competent to manage the tavazhi affairs, and that as the appointment of a receiver permanently as manager was not permissible the Court could not appoint an interim receiver for the same purpose pending disposal of the suit. He appears to have been also of the opinion that as under the karar of 1914 it was provided that if there was any difference of opinion among the five managers, the voice of the majority should prevail, the present deadlock and confusion in the affairs of the tavazhi were the result of the attempt of one of the five managers, backed by the agent, Krishna Menon, to defy and set at naught the opinion of the majority of the managers, that is to say, the remaining four managers. It was on these grounds that the application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, and the plain-tiff in the suit is the appellant here. The question was argued at some length as to whether an interim receiver can be appointed for the management of the properties of a Marumakattayam group. It is curious that there should be lack of clear authority on the question. It has not been seriously argued that a permanent receiver can be appointed by the Court from outside for the management of the properties of a tarwad. The right of such management is one which is vested by birth, and such a right can only be lost either by renunciation or when the person who has such a right is removed from office by a decree of Court for mismanagement. Another exception is where the members of a tarwad including the persons entitled to the management by right of birth agree among themselves to vest the management in any person or body of persons they think fit. If for any reason the agreement becomes inoperative the position would be as if there had been no karar at all, and the person who is entitled by birth to be the karnavan and manager would become entitled to management.