The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale deed executed by the junior members of the tarwad without the consent of the karnavan is not valid and binding on the thavazhi. Additionally, the delegation of powers by the karnavan and the necessity for the sale must be valid for the sale to be considered binding.

1.This appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree of the court below dismissing their suit herein for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

2. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 2 to 5 are the members of the Kalipurayath thavazhi in Ponnani in Malabar. Of these, the 1st plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are brothers and the 5th defendant is their sister. They had another sister Lekshmi deceased, whose son is the 4th defendant. The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 minors are the children of the 5th defendant The plaint schedule items 1 and 2, 22 acres and 16 cents and 15 cents in extent respectively and consisting of Kole lands lying adjacent to each other in Talapilly Taluk in Cochin, appertained to the thavazhi. The 1st plaintiff Atchutha Menon became the karnavan of the thavazhi in December 1938 while still he was employed at Borneo, having gone therefor the first time in or about 1930. The senior Anandaravan in the thavazhi was Sivasankara Menon, the 2nd defendant who was employed in the Agricultural Department under the Madras Government. The next junior member was Karunakara Menon, the 3rd defendant who had settled down at the thavazhi house itself in Ponnani. To 3rd defendant therefore, the 1st plaintiff on becoming karnavan gave power in writing to manage the thavazhi on his behalf. This power-of-attorney is not produced in the case. However from its description contained in Ext. 18 mortgage executed on its strength and accepted by both parties it would appear to have been executed on 22 - 3 -1939 and also to have authorised the 3rd defendant among others to deal with the thavazhi properties "by way of sale and all other dispositions as mukthiyar agent of the 1st plaintiff".

3. On 17-6-1117 the defendants 2 to 5 executed and registered Ext. VIII sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 and for a price of Rs. 8,000 "for meeting the thavazhi needs" in favour of the 1st defendant Dr. Anna Cheriyan. The 1st Plaintiff was made party to this sale by the 3rd defendant acting for the purpose under the power-of-attorney above referred to and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 minors were represented in it by their mother and guardian the 5th defendant. The consideration under the sale of Rs.8,000 was made up of (i) Rs. 5,250 reserved with the vendee for discharge of Ext. 22 decree in O. S. No.

19 of 1112 of the Trichur District Court and (ii) Rs. 2750 cash paid to the 3rd defendant before the Sub Registrar. The decree provided for in the first recital was passed on 29-5-1113 corresponding to 11-2-1928 in favour of the Kshemavilasam Co., Ltd., of Trichur who were foremen under a chitty scheme against the thavazhi of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 as chitty subscribers for defaulted chitty subscriptions under prized ticket. At date of Ext. VIII the decree had been obtained assignment of by the 1st defendant's brother Varuthunni and steps were being taken by him for bringing the plaint schedule item 1 charged under the decree to sale in execution for realising the sum of about Rs. 6,300 accrued under it.

4. The plaint averred that Ext. VIII sale was not binding upon the plaintiffs or their thavazhi for the various grounds detailed in clauses (a) to (i) in Para.6 and also in Para.7 thereof as the incompetency of the executants and want of consideration and necessity binding on the thavazhi. And as the 1st defendant had managed to get possession of the suit properties on foot of the said sale deed, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover back possession on the strength of the title of the thavazhi. The 1st plaintiff claimed to have obtained knowledge of the sale deed only on 30-12-1946 when he returned from Borneo. This suit was thereafter laid on 23-12-1122 for recovery by the 1st plaintiff as thavazhi karnavan of the plaint schedule properties with mesne profits at particular rate from date of plaint.

5. The 1st defendant resisted the suit by categorical denials of the plain