OTTAPARAKKAL THAZHATH SOOPI Vs. CHARICHAL PALLIKKAL MARIYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for redemption brought by junior members of what is termed a strisothu Tarwad, the manager of which is a woman called a Karnavathi and the members of which are governed by Marumakkathayam Law. The suit has been decreed, and the first question before us is whether the plaintiffs had a right to maintain it. As laid down in Vasudevan v. Sankaraw (1897) I.L.R. 20 M. 129 and numerous other decisions, a Karnavan is at once the manager and the mouthpiece of the tarwad, or in the words of Mr. Justice Holloway " a Malabar family speaks through its head the Karnavan and in Courts of Justice except in antagonism to that head can speak in no other way."

(2.) So although we might be prepared to hold that junior members of such a family were, generally speaking, persons having an interest in tarwad property within the meaning of Section 91, Transfer of Property Act, where the individual right of suit from the point of view of the personal law of the parties is in question, we are fully in agreement with the statement of law laid down in S.A. No. 959 of 1917 where it was declared by Phillips and Kumaraswami Sastri, JJ. that only under very special circumstances could the anandravans of a tarwad maintain a suit for redemption of a kanom granted by their karnavan, as such a suit would amount to an act of interference in the karnavan s management of tarwad affairs.

(3.) In the present case the plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that the 1st defendant was acting in collusion with the 16th defendant, the Kanomdar, and was ready to do any act prejudicial to the tarwad, and again, that if the possession of the properties was not recovered at once the jenmam title of the tarwad would in course of time be prejudiced. In her written statement the 1st defendant denied all the imputations made against her in the plaint.