Skip to content


Muringa Mangalath Gopalan Nayar and ors. Vs. the Kiyaka Kovilagath Valia Tamburatti and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad87
AppellantMuringa Mangalath Gopalan Nayar and ors.
RespondentThe Kiyaka Kovilagath Valia Tamburatti and anr.
Excerpt:
malabar law - karnavan's authority--tarwad bound by bona fide acts of--procedure--suit against tarwad--civil procedure code, section 30. - - the suit was resisted in the lower appellate court strenuously, but unsuccessfully; it is certainly good against the persons who were parties to it. it is not shown that the karnavan acted otherwise than in good faith, and, therefore, there is no ground for removing the karnavan from his office, and lastly the leasehold cannot be restored because it has been forfeited by the bond fide act of the karnavan, who represented the tarwad as the manager......in their representative. this practice had its origin in convenience, but now that the code of civil procedure, section 30, contains a special provision to obviate the inconvenience, where a number of persons in the same interest have occasion to assert or defend their rights by suit, it may be doubted how far the practice would be now upheld, and it is advisable that resort should be had to the provisions of section 30, civil procedure code.2. in the present case, it appears that the karnavan and eight anandravans were impleaded by a jenmkar, under whom the tarwad held a lease, which they alleged was perpetual. they had denied the jenmkar's title, and she claimed, in accordance with the accepted law of malabar, a forfeiture of the holding. the suit was resisted in the lower.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.

1. A practice has prevailed in Malabar, whereby the karnavan has been recognized as representing the tarwad and entitled to sue or defend suits as such representative without the association of the other members of the tarwad, who were nevertheless held bound by decrees passed in such suits, unless they showed mala fides in their representative. This practice had its origin in convenience, but now that the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 30, contains a special provision to obviate the inconvenience, where a number of persons in the same interest have occasion to assert or defend their rights by suit, it may be doubted how far the practice would be now upheld, and it is advisable that resort should be had to the provisions of Section 30, Civil Procedure Code.

2. In the present case, it appears that the karnavan and eight anandravans were impleaded by a jenmkar, under whom the tarwad held a lease, which they alleged was perpetual. They had denied the jenmkar's title, and she claimed, in accordance with the accepted law of Malabar, a forfeiture of the holding. The suit was resisted in the Lower Appellate Court strenuously, but unsuccessfully; the appellants are now claiming that the decree be set aside, that the karnavan should be removed because he denied the jenmkar's title, and that the leasehold interests of the tarwad should be restored. The decree cannot be set aside. It is certainly good against the persons who were parties to it. It is not shown that the karnavan acted otherwise than in good faith, and, therefore, there is no ground for removing the karnavan from his office, and lastly the leasehold cannot be restored because it has been forfeited by the bond fide act of the karnavan, who represented the tarwad as the manager. The suit was properly dismissed, and the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //