1. The suit, though framed very inartistically was apparently treated by both the parties in the lower Courts as a suit for arrears of maintenance for the period during which the 1st plaintiff resided in Palghat for the purposes of education. Part of the amount claimed is at all events what was spent in connection with his maintenance in the very limited sense of the term. We are unable to say that the view taken by the lower Courts as to the character of the suit is wrong. We accordingly overrule the objection that the suit is of the nature of a case triable by a Small Cause Court and, therefore, no second appeal lies.
2. Upon the merits also, we agree with the lower appellate Court. The question as to what the duties of a karnavan are with reference to the education of the different members of the tarwad is a large one as to which little or no authority is to be found. It is essentially one which in particular cases would depend upon its own circumstances. No general rules can, therefore, be laid down on the subject. So far as the present case goes, it appears that the karnavan did not absolutely decline to educate the plaintiff. He was ready and willing only to give such education in his own place as was practicable there.. The 1st plaintiff, however, having without the consent of the karnavan removed to Palghat to attend the school there in order to be taught English, the question is whether the karnavan was bound to pay the expenses connected with such education. Unless, as contended for the appellant, a karnavan is to be, as a rule, held bound to give education through the medium of the English language and on Western lines, to borrow the words of the Subordinate Judge, this second appeal must fail; and we have no hesitation in holding that such education has not become essential in the sense that it is incumbent on a karnavan to provide for it as part of his duties with reference to the members of the tarwad.
3. We cannot, therefore, say that the karnavan here went beyond his powers in declining to meet the expenses to which this suit mainly relates. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.