1. The learned District Judge dealt with the case without reference to Karyan Kandy Patupurail Cheria Chirikandan v. Aylliath Kushitath Krishnan Nambiar 16 Ind. Cas. 391 : 12 M.L.T. 600. That decision shows, what is not recognised in the judgment under appeal, that a karnavan has not an uncontrolled discretion in the renewal of kanoms or grant of melcharths prior to the expiration of the term of the former, but must justify his grants by family necessity or advantage, The learned District Judge's misapprehension of the law appears to have influenced his consideration of this part of the case. We must, therefore, call on him to submit a finding in the light of the foregoing on the issues:
(1) Was there adequate necessity for the grant of Exhibit B, so as to make it binding on the tarwad?'
(2) 'Did plaintiff take it with the bona fide belief that there was such necessity?
2. The findings should be submitted within two months after the re-opening of the District Court after the summer recess and seven days will be allowed for filing objections. After the return of the finding of the lower Appellate Court upon the issues referred by this Court for trial, the Court delivered the following
3. We understand the finding of the lower Appellate Court to be that the plaintiff (who was the Vakil's clerk of the karnavan who granted the melcharth) was not a bona fide alienee so far as regards the 10 items of properties in dispute are concerned, that is, did not believe in the necessity for the grant of the melcharth, and that there was no such necessity in fact.
4. We accept this finding and setting aside the District Judge's decree, restore the decree of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court payable to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to decide in this suit the question whether the melcharth is valid against the tarwad of the mortgagors and against the prior mortgagees (if any) of the six items of properties not now in dispute.