The main legal point established is that long absence from India can amount to abandonment of Karnavanship, and an execution sale conducted with notice to the Karnavathi of the tarwad is valid.

1. Kuttikrishnan Nair, the appellant in both the cases is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 40 of 1951 and the 3rd defendant-petitioner in Small cause suit No. 367 of 1940 of the District Munsiff's Court of Palghat. A.S. No. 441 is from the decree dismissing O.S. No 40 of 1951 and A.S. No. 414 is from the order dismissing an application to set aside an order in execution of the small cause decree declaring the appellant ex-parte. The two appeals were heard together.

2. The facts necessary for the decision of the two appeals may be briefly stated. The appellant and Defendants 3 to 22 in O. S. No. 40 of 1951 are members of an undivided Marumakkathayam tarwad of which the appellant is the senior most male member. One Padmanabhan Nair, a former karnavan of this tarwad had mortgaged with possession the properties described as items 1 to 16 in the plaint schedule as well as the mortgage right in four other items of immoveable property to one Kesavan Nair for a sum of Rs. 4000. Ext. A2 dated 14-4-1922 is the deed of mortgage The properties were leased back to the tarwad under Ext. A3 of the same date. During the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgage right which the tarwad had in the 4 items referred to above was redeemed and a sum of Rs. 1400/- was received by Kesavan Nair as mortgage money, so that the balance due under Ext. A2 was Rs. 2600. At the time of Exts. A2 and A3 the plaintiff and his younger brother Atchuthan Nair who is the 5th respondent in A.S.No.441 were in Malaya. On 11-4-1923 Padmanabhan Nair and the plaintiff executed a puramkadam Ext. A4 for Rs. 3500 in favour of Kesavan Nair and the latter executed a lease back Ext. A5 on the same day. Padmanabhan Nair relinquished management of the tarwad in 1923 and the plaintiff thus became the karnavan and Manager. The plaintiff again left for Malaya and came back in 1926 when he stayed here fora short while. He again went to Malaya in 1927 and returned only in May 1951. In the meanwhile the mortgagee had assigned his rights to the 1st defendant. In 1940 the 2nd defendant who is the 1st defendant's wife instituted a suit as Small cause suit No. 106 of 1940 in the Munsiff's Court of Ottapalam against all the members in the tarwad including the plaintiff on the basis of a promissory,note executed on 28-4-1957 by defendants 3 and 4, the plaintiff's mother and sister, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 221-14-7. The suit was later transferred to the Munsiff's Court, Palghat where it was numbered as Small cause suit No. 367 of 1940. A decree was passed ex-parte in that case and in execution, the 2nd defendant purchased the equity of redemption of all the 16 items covered by the mortgage and puramkadom. The 1st defendant then surrendered his mortgage right to the 2nd defendant. According to the appellant, the promissory note sued on and the decree obtained thereon are not binding on the tarwad. The 3rd defendant was not competent to bind the tarwad as the plaintiff was the karnavan at that time. He was not impleaded as the karnavan in the suit. The appellant however did not seek for cancellation of the decree as execution of the same had become barred by limitation on the date of the suit. The sale in execution of the decree was sought to be set aside on the ground that no notice was served on the appellant who was the karnavan of the tarwad. Treating the execution sale as a nullity the appellants sued in 0. S. No. 40 for redemption of the mortgage after scaling down the mortgage debt under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The 2nd defendant contested the suit. Her main contentions were that the mortgage was not subsisting as she had obtained the equity of redemption in execution of the small cause decree and had taken a release of the mortgage right, that the execution sale was valid, that the tarwad was properly represented in the suit and in execution proceedings, that the plaintiff and the tarwad were estopped from contending that the 3rd defendant was not the Karanavathi