Back
M.MADHAVAN NAIR, M.S.MENON, S.VELU PILLAI
KUNHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRI – Respondent
Key Points: - The right of a junior member to question unauthorised alienations is an individual and personal right of each member. (!) - The inaction of one junior member cannot prevent or destroy another's right to sue. (!) - The right to question improper alienations by the karanavan vesting in every anandaravan by virtue of his position as such is individually held, not a common joint action. (!) - The court discusses balancing whether a discharge for limitation purposes can be given by the managing member or karanavan without other members’ concurrence, with Privy Council guidance supporting a representative discharge concept for Tarwad/Marumakkathayam. (!) (!) (!) - In the Marumakkathayam tarwad context, only the managing member (karanavan or manager) may give a discharge within S.7; a non-manager junior member cannot. (!) (!) - Ext. B39 (1936 sale) is within time for the plaintiff’s suit, as it concerns an individual right to challenge, not barred by limitation due to inaction of a non-dispositive member. (!) (!) - The tarwad is a legal entity with rights and liabilities; each member has an equal proprietary interest, and actions to protect the tarwad’s properties may be brought by any competent member or representative. (!) (!) - The appeal’s outcome includes upholding the time there’s a discharge issue and modifying certain monetary relief, while discharging interest award pending final decree. (!) (!) (!)
1. This appeal has arisen in a suit for partition of a Nambudiri Illom ignoring certain alienations executed by its karanavan, the 1st defendant, in favour of defendants 6 to 156. At the time of the suit, the illom consisted of six members, namely the 1st defendant, his wife the 2nd defendant, and their children, the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff & the defendants 4 and 5 in the order of seniority. In passing the preliminary decree for partition the court below has found the oral lease claimed by the 12th defendant not true, and many of the impugned alienations unsupported by illom necessity or benefit, and set them aside. Among the alienations so set aside were:
Ext. B33 dated March 28,1950, in favour of the 13th defendant;
Ext. B34 dated February 28,1950, Ext. B35 dated October 14,1946, and Ext. B36 dated July 3,1944, the interests where under have devolved on the 17th defendant;
Ext. B39 dated November 13,1936, in favour of the 19th defendant; and
Ext. B75 dated May 28, 1938, to the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 151 and 152. This appeal is by the disappointed alienees defendants Nos. 12,13,17,19,151, and 152.
2. S.5 of the Madras Nambudiri Act 21 of 1933, before its
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
