1. The decision in Kanaran v. Kunjan I.L.R. 12 Mad., 307 goes no further than that a blind man is not a fit person to be karnavan of a tarwad against the wishes of the other members of the tarwad. The reason given is that the ruin of the tarwad would be the likely result. It is therefore for the members of the tarwad to object to such a man being their karnavan and not for strangers. Defendant No. 2, who has raised the objection in the present case, no doubt, claims to be a member of the tarwad, but this claim of his is denied by the plaintiff; and other members of the tarwad have put in a petition, recognising plaintiff as their karnavan, and asking that the suit may be proceeded with in his name. If defendants desire, these petitioners might also be included as plaintiffs in this suit. The mere fact of plaintiffs blindness does not appear to be a valid ground for dismissal of the suit. The decrees of both the lower Courts are, therefore, set aside and the suit remanded for replacement on the file of the District Munsif and disposal according to law.

2. Plaintiffs costs in the lower Appellate Court, and in this Court, must be paid by second and third defendants. The rest of