MANKOOTTIL CHATHUKUTTI NAIR Vs. PPMKOMAPPAN NAIRAND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision is whether a deed of mortgage executed by a Karnavan in payment of a decree debt which was barred by limitation at the date of the mortgage ia binding on the junior members of the Tarward.

(2.) Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon for the appellant relied on Era-vanni Ravi Varman v. Ittappo Ravi Varman (1875) I.L.R. 1 M. 153 in support of the proposition that the Karnavan of a Malabar Tarwad occupies a position analogous to that of a Hindu father under the Mitakshara Law We do not think that the learned Judges intended in that case to draw a distinction between the position of a father and that of a bare manager. The exact status of a Karnavan was considered more elaborately in Achal Ram v. Kazim Husain (1905) 15 M.L.J. 197 at 201 and Kunhi-chekhan v. Lydia Arucanden (1911) 11 M.L.T. 232 and we agree with the view taken in these two decisions that the Karnavan occupies a position more akin to that of a manager, than to that of a Hindu father. The peculiar obligations which a Hindu son incurs in respect of the debt of his father are not those with which a junior member of a tarwad is chargeable with reference to the Karnavan s debts.

(3.) It has been held in Chinnayya v. Gurunathan (1882) I.L.R.5 M. 169 that the manager of a Hindu family is not entitled to revive a barred debt and this decision has been cited with approval in Narayana-swami v. Sami Das (1883) I.L.R 6 M. 293, Kondappa v. Subba (1890) I.L.R. 13 M. 189 and Suryanarayana v. Narendra Tatraz (1896) I.L.R 19 M. 255, As regards Kondappa v. Subba 1890) I.L.R. 13 M. 189 it is enough to point out that the widow was regarded as being under a pious duty to relieve her husband from the sin of not paying a just debt. In the case of sons, the Hindu Law imposes an obligation to pay their father s debts not tainted with illegality or immorality. That is the reason of the rule in Narayanaswami v. Sami Das (1883) I.L.R 6 M. 293 We do not think that the view in Dulip Singh v. Kundan Lal (1914) I.L.R. 35 A. 207 to the contrary is good Law,