Back
Judges : SANKARAN,JOSEPH
Pappu - Appellant
Versus
Sekharan - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 521 of 1124 (T. )
Decided On : 11/30/1953
Advocates Appeared :
N. Varadaraja Iyengar; For Appellant P. Govindan Nair; For Respondents
maintenance - tarwad properties - Ezhava Act 3 of 1100 - The court decreed maintenance to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 2 ch. 22 cash. 11 per mensem, making the 1st defendant liable and giving charge for the same on all the plaint items. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The acquisitions made by the 1st defendant during the period of his management of the tarwad and with the aid of the income of tarwad properties became properties of the tarwad as soon as they were acquired. The plaintiffs as junior members of the tarwad were entitled to get a decree for maintenance charged on these items as well. The 1st defendant had no absolute power of disposal either by way of sale or gift in respect of such acquisitions. Alienations of such properties were subject to the same restrictions and limitations as are applicable to other tarwad properties. The acquisitions were made one after another during a period of nearly 37 years during which the income of the Sakha was increasing year after year. The court held that the acquisitions were made by the 1st defendant as karanavan and manager of the Sakha and that the income of item No. 8 was available to him for this purpose. The court confirmed the decree of the court below except as regards the findings relating to item No. 44. The court held that the liability of the properties for maintenance accruing subsequent to the death of the 1st defendant does not arise for decision in this case. The court also held that the acquisitions made by the 1st defendant in this case during the period of his management of the tarwad and with the aid of the income of tarwad properties, became properties of the tarwad as soon as they were acquired, and up to the time of the 1st defendant's death he was in possession and management of those properties in the same manner and with the same legal incidents applicable to other items of tarwad properties. The appeal was dismissed with costs, one set only, to respondents 1 and 2.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was brought by the plaintiffs, who were members of a Misradaya Ezhava Tarwad, against the 1st defendant, who was the karnavan and manager of the tarwad. The plaintiffs claimed maintenance from the 1st defendant and the tarwad properties, alleging that the 1st defendant had not been properly discharging his duties to the members of the tarwad or maintaining them and had been appropriating the income of immovable properties and interest on investments. The 1st defendant contested, claiming that certain items were his self-acquisitions and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get maintenance only out of the income of specific items in the plaint schedule.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed maintenance to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 2 ch. 22 cash. 11 per mensem, making the 1st defendant liable and giving charge for the same on all the plaint items. The court held that the acquisitions made by the 1st defendant during the period of his management of the tarwad and with the aid of the income of tarwad properties became properties of the tarwad as soon as they were acquired. The plaintiffs as junior members of the tarwad were entitled to get a decree for maintenance charged on these items as well. The 1st defendant had no absolute power of disposal either by way of sale or gift in respect of such acquisitions. Alienations of such properties were subject to the same restrictions and limitations as are applicable to other tarwad properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisitions made by the 1st defendant during the period of his management of the tarwad and with the aid of the income of tarwad properties became properties of the tarwad as soon as they were acquired. The plaintiffs as junior members of the tarwad were entitled to get a decree for maintenance charged on these items as well. The 1st defendant had no absolute power of disposal either by way of sale or gift in respect of such acquisitions. Alienations of such properties were subject to the same restrictions and limitations as are applicable to other tarwad properties.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, one set only, to respondents 1 and 2.
1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The appeal is from a decree granting each of the two plaintiffs maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2 Ch. 22 cash 11 per mensem. The suit was brought on the following allegations. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 1 to 36 are members of a Misradaya Ezhava Tarwad of which the 1st defendant is the karnavan and manager. Items 1 to 50 described in the plaint schedule are properties belonging to the tarwad. For some time prior to the filing of the suit, the 1st defendant has not been properly discharging his duties to the members of the tarwad or maintaining them and he had been appropriating the income of immovable properties and interest on investments. Such gross income would amount to Rs. 3,000/- per annum. After deductions for tax and maintenance of the properties, each of the plaintiffs would be entitled to get Rs. 5/- per mensem tarwads maintenance. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for maintenance from 1.7.1112 at the rate mentioned above, making the 1st defendant and tarwad properties liable for the same.
2. The 1st defendant contested. He admitted that plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 36 constituted an undivided tarwad as alleged by the plaintiffs. His main contention was that items other than 1 to 7 were his self-acquisitions and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get maintenance only out of the income of items 1 to 7 in the plaint schedule. According to him the Sakha had no properties until items 1 to 3 which were acquisitions by a common karnavan Perumal Nilakantan were obtained in partition after his death, by the Sakha to which the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 36 belong. Kumara Bhagavathy was the karnavan of this branch and he was managing the affairs of the Sakha till he died on 19.6.1093. Items 4 to 7 which were the acquisitions of Kumara Bhagavathy were obtained by the Sakha as per partition deed dated 28.6.1095. He became karanavan only after the death of Kumara Bhagavathy. The annual income of these properties namely items 1 to 7 was only Rs. 287/-. This was insufficient for the maintenance of the members of the tarwad and he had to spend his private funds for this purpose, as well as for effecting valuable improvements in the properties. In paragraphs 18 to 29 of the written statement, he gave details regarding the acquisition of items 8 to 50 which were claimed as his own. He claimed to have effected valuable improvements in items 1 to 9 of which he claimed the value in respect of improvements in items 1 to 7. He denied the other allegations in the plaint and stated that he had no objection in the plaintiffs being awarded maintenance at the rate of 31/2 Fs. per mensem, which could also be charged on items 1 to 7, subject to his claim for compensation for improvements.
3. A replication was filed by the plaintiffs wherein they stated their case with greater clarity and detail than the plaint. The averments in the replication are the following: Item No. 8 in the plaint schedule was obtained on lease by Kumara Bhagavathy the karnavan of the Sakha prior to 1070 M.E., buildings were constructed in item No. 8 excluding an area of 521/2 cents there in and his sister Chakkikali (mother of the 1st defendant) and her children were allowed to take the yield for their maintenance. All this was done to found a Sakha Tarwad known as Kochu Nammian Thitta. The management of the Sakha was attended to by Chakkikali and the 1st defendant initially and later on by the 1st defendant alone. With the income from this property as well as the income which accrued by the labour of the members of the Sakha, items 9 and 10 and the mortgage right in items 11 to 16 were acquired for the Sakha. In 1076 items 1 to 3 and a sum of 4816 9/16 fanams were obtained in partition of karanavan Perumal Nilakandan's assets and these went to the hands of the 1st defendant who was manager at that time. With this amount as well as the income of the other properties, Otti and Kuzhikanom rights over item No. 8 w
AI
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
