Skip to content


Pazhavathil Mavilaputhia Veetil Chindan Nambiar Vs. Kunhi Raman Nambiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in45Ind.Cas.26; (1918)34MLJ400
AppellantPazhavathil Mavilaputhia Veetil Chindan Nambiar
RespondentKunhi Raman Nambiar and ors.
Cases ReferredCheriya Pangi Achan v. Unnalachan
Excerpt:
- .....of the first defendant to the said office. the supercession of second defendant's rights by the family karar cannot, of course, be affected by any subsequent unilateral act or expression of intention on his part.2. the 1st defendant became not only the de facto karnavan but also the de jure karnavan under the karar and he can therefore be removed by suit for gross misconduct.3. as soon as a karnavan ceases to be such by death or removal, the next in order of seniority becomes the karnavan, and any family karar binding on the person who has ceased to be the karnavan ceases to have, any affect on the new karnavan ''except perhaps where he has himself agreed in that karar to be bound by those restrictions whenever he succeeded to the stanom.' there is no scope for the framing of a scheme.....
Judgment:

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. It is clear to my mind that the Karar Exhibit B dated in 1892 deprived the 2nd defendant of his Karnavastanam though with his consent and vested the office in the 1st defendant. The fact that the tarwad (including the new Karnavan) gave the management of a temple and its income to the removed Karnavan did not affect the other results of the Karar, namely, the putting an end to the tenure of the second defendant's office as Karnavan and the appointment of the first defendant to the said office. The supercession of second defendant's rights by the family Karar cannot, of course, be affected by any subsequent unilateral act or expression of intention on his part.

2. The 1st defendant became not only the de facto Karnavan but also the de jure Karnavan under the Karar and he can therefore be removed by suit for gross misconduct.

3. As soon as a Karnavan ceases to be such by death or removal, the next in order of seniority becomes the Karnavan, and any family Karar binding on the person who has ceased to be the Karnavan ceases to have, any affect on the new Karnavan ''except perhaps where he has himself agreed in that Karar to be bound by those restrictions whenever he succeeded to the stanom.' There is no scope for the framing of a scheme of management by a Court under those circumstances. This was all that I. intended to express in Cheriya Pangi Achan v. Unnalachan : (1917)32MLJ323 .

4. A family Karar to which all the adult members of a Tarwad are parties and by which a person is deprived of his status as Karnavan is not the same thing in the eye of the law as an unilateral act of relinquishment of his office by the Karnavan though the result on his status as Karnavan may be the same.

5. I think that the question (a) referred to us does not arise for decision on the above view of the legal nature and effect of the family Karar Exhibit B and I would answer as regards question (b) that a suit will lie to remove the Karnavan recognised as such by a family Karar.

John Wallis, C.J.

6. I agree.

Spencer, J.

7. I agree.


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