Order of Reference to the Full Bench.-We refer to the Full Bench the following question:

“Whether with reference to the decision in Narayanan Nambudiri v. Sundara Aiyar1and Narayanan Nambudiri v. The Chalapuram Bank, Ltd.2, it is within the powers of the karnavan of the Nambudiri illom to impose on the illom liability for debts incurred in running a kuri or chit in the absence of any family custom.”

This appeal coming on for hearing, in pursuance of the aforesaid Order of Reference, the Court expressed the following

Opinion: The Officiating Chief Justice.-The question referred to the Full Bench is whether, with reference to the decisions in Narayanan Nambudiri v. Sundara Aiyar 1 and Narayanan Nambudiri v. The Chalapuram Bank, Ltd.2, it is within the power of the karnavan of Nambudiri illom to impose on the illom liability for debts incurred in running a kuri or chit, in the absence of any family custom. Before dealing with this reference we wish to make it clear at the outset that we are not concerned with the question whether for necessity a karnavan can borrow from a chit fund, nor are we concerned with a case in which it can be shown that the running of chits is an established institution in a particular family justified by the custom of that family.

The facts so far as they are necessary in the present case are that the first and second defendants and their elder brother Narayanan Nambudiripad who is now dead and who was at that time the karnavan of the illom or mana, started a kuri in 1917. This kuri was one of a very usual type. There were to be 20 subscribers besides the stakeholders. Each subscriber was to pay a subscription of Rs. 600 yearly for 20 years. The stakeholders were to receive the whole of the money for the first year and in subsequent years, after deducting Rs. 600 which was to be distributed by way of interest, the balance was to be put up to auction and the subscriber who bid the biggest discount was to get the money, the discount being distributed amongst the subscribers. The stakeholders made themselves liable for any loss which might ensue and they bound their property also. They were charged with the duty of collecting the subscriptions, holding the auctions and looking after the security which was to be taken from those who had drawn prizes in the successive auctions, so as to guarantee that their future subscriptions would be forthcoming. The kuri continued to run until its maturity at which date there was one subscriber, the plaintiff in the suit out of which A.S. No. 127 arises, who had not drawn a prize and was therefore entitled to the full amount of his subscriptions, which was not paid, and another subscriber, the plaintiff in the suit out of which A.S. No. 341 arises, who had not been paid the full amount due to him under the rules.

For the purposes of the present reference we are assuming that the first and Second defendants and their elder brother started this kuri as a transaction of their family, though it must be observed that this is not conceded by the other members of the family. Now the general rule laid down by the Privy Council in Sanyasi Charan Mandal v. Krishnadhan Banerji1and Benares Bank, Ltd. v. Hari Narain2 is that the manager of a joint Hindu family cannot impose on the joint family and particularly on the minor members thereof, liability for debts incurred in connection with a new trade or business. This rule, of course, does not apply to the opening of new branches of the family firm by trading families and it has been held not to apply to the starting of a reconstituted business on the dissolution of an old family partnership. But we are not concerned here with those special cases. Here we have a family which is not a trading family and not, so far as we know, a family ancestrally employed in the running of kuris or chits. Is there anything special or peculiar about the position of a Nambudiri karnavan which gives him powers such as are denied to the manager of an ordinary Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document