Back
1892 Supreme(Mad) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Ayyar, Best
Ukkandan
Versus
Kunhunni And Ors.
Decided On : 12 February, 1892
The court emphasized that the blindness of the plaintiff was not a valid ground for dismissal of the suit, and the decision to appoint a karnavan should be made by the members of the tarwad and not by strangers.
Headnote:
Karnavan - Blindness of Karnavan - 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 ruin of the tarwad would be the likely result. It is for the members of the tarwad to object to such a man being their karnavan and not for strangers.
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the blind plaintiff's blindness was not a valid ground for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No. 2 raised the objection to the plaintiff being the karnavan of the tarwad, claiming to be a member of the tarwad, but this claim was denied by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The decrees of both the lower Courts were set aside and the suit was remanded for replacement on the file of the District Munsif and disposal according to law. Plaintiff's costs in the lower Appellate Court, and in this Court, must be paid by second and third defendants.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the blind plaintiff being the karnavan of the tarwad against the wishes of the other members of the tarwad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the blindness of the plaintiff was not a valid ground for dismissal of the suit, and it was for the members of the tarwad to object to such a man being their karnavan and not for strangers.
Final Decision: The decrees of both the lower Courts were set aside and the suit was remanded for replacement on the file of the District Munsif and disposal according to law. Plaintiff's costs in the lower Appellate Court, and in this Court, must be paid by second and third defendants.
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 the costs incurred hitherto will follow and abide the result
