MAVILI ERECHAN MENOKI Vs. KOMAPAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant who is the karnavan of the tarward executed a pro-note to the plaintiff who brought a suit on it. The Sub-Judge found that the first defendant was not the manager of the tarward which was being managed by the 4 defendant under kararirom 1 defendant. He also found that the plaintiff was aware of the fact. He also found that the loan was not for family necessity and, therefore gave plaintiff a personal decree against the first defendant. A revision against tarwad is filed against this order.

(2.) It is sought to get over the findings of fact with regard to management by arguing that the appointment of 4 defendant as agent under the karar did not preclude the karanavan from acting himself and that the provisions of thekarar must be strictly construed.

(3.) That a powor-of-attorney or karar must be strictly construed is not denied. Krishna Menon V/s. Krishnan Nair 62 Ind. Cas. 598 : 40 M.L.J. 388 : 31 L.W. 384 : 29 M.L.T. 340, is quoted for the position that a karar executed by the karanavan in favour of an anandaravan under which the latter was to carry on the management by virtue of a muktearnamah does deprive the karanavan of his right to grant a melcharth The remark on page 123 of P.E. Sundara Iyer's Malabar and Aliyasantana Law that the appointment of a junior member as a muktear or agent cannot preclude the karanavan from acting himself is also relied on. That remark must he read, however, in the light of Krishna Menon V/s. Krishnan Nair 62 Ind. Cas. 598 : 40 M.L.J. 388 : 31 L.W. 384 : 29 M.L.T. 340, which is quoted immediately afterwards. It does not mean that, a karanavan cannot surrender his management (vide the opening remarks of Chap. VIII page 177 of the same book.) Now turning to the muktearnama in this case; it is clear that in the matter of raising loans the karanavan has divested himself by it of his power to act alone and without the 4 defendant.