V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. Can the karnavan of a Malabar tarwad validly represent (and thereby bind) his anandiravans in a suit and decree based on a transaction which he himself fobbed off on the family without necessity or benefit ? That is the central problem raised in this appeal and high-lighted in the debate at the bar and my hesitant answer is that he cannot.

2. The plaintiffs have appealed to the High Court from a decree of the Sub Court, Palghat, dismissing their suit for a declaration that another decree (in O.S. No. 43 of 1962 on the file of the same Court), Ext. B-18, is not binding on their tavazhi. That decree was passed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in enforcement of a mortgage, Ext. B-1, executed in favour of deceased Chamu, their father, by the 3rd defendant on behalf of her son, the 1st plaintiff, and on her own behalf. The mortgage amount is Rs. 11,000 and is made up of sums representing two prior debts of Rs. 760-6-0 and Rs. 5,331-4-0 debts which are not seriously disputed before us and rightly so, and another borrowing, under a promissory note, Ext. B-2, for Rs. 2,000 which had accumulated to Rs. 2,031 plus a cash payment of Rs. 2,921 stated to have been