The karnavan of a Malabar tarwad has full power to alienate moveable property at his discretion, and a purchaser for consideration can rely on the vendor's powers, regardless of false recitals in the transfer deed.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The seven plaintiffs are the junior members of a Malabar brahmin illom (tarwad of brahmins is usually called illom) of which the 1st defendant is the karnavan. The 1st defendant when he was a junior member in 1906 obtained a simple bond in his name. While still a junior member, he obtained a decree thereon in his own name on 9-7-1910. Three years afterwards (in 1913) he became the karnavan of tarwad on the death of the prior karnavan. He treated the bond he obtained in 1906 and the decree thereon which he obtained in 1910 as the self acquistion and transferred the decree to the 2nd defendant on 8-12-1915 for a consideration of Rs. 650. The 2nd defendant is a Pattar while the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are Embrandris. The 3rd defendant is the judgment-debtor under the decree.

2. The plaintiff stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint that "the 2nd defendant lives not far from the illom of the plaintiff and knew very well that the decree amount really belongs to the plaintiffs tarwad. With this knowledge he fraudulently colluded with the 1st defendant and accepted the assignment abovesaid subject to all risks". The plaintiffs therefore prayed for a declaration that the amount due under the decree in O.S. No. 254 of 1910 is really due to the tarwad of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they prayed for other appurtenant reliefs.

3. The District Munsif found (a) that the amount of bond of 1906 belonged to the tarwad and therefore the decree amount also belonged to the tarwad and not to the 1st defendant as his self acquisition; (b) that as the tarwad had allowed the 1st defendant to appear as the ostensible private owner of the decree and of the debt due under the bond for nearly ten years before this suit was brought and as the 2nd defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value and a stranger to the tarwad, the tarwad is estopped from contending as against the 2nd defendant that the decree amount belonged to it and from contending that the 1st defendant had no right to transfer it to the 2nd defendant. He therefore dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

4. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge concurred in the finding of the first Court that the money belonged to the plaintiffs illom but he held that though the 2nd defendant paid consideration for the assignment and the assignment to him was a real transaction he did not make proper enquiry whether the money belonged to the tarwad or to the 1st defendant in his personal capacity and therefore the Sub-Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit.

5. In second appeal the appellants contentions are stated in grounds 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 15 of the memo. These contentions might be shortly stated thus:-(a) the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in 1ts view that the presumption of law is that the properties standing in the name of a junior member of a tarwad belong to the tarwad unless the contrary is shown ; it therefore threw the burden of proof wrongly on the 1st and 2nd defendants and its finding that the bond and the decree belonged to the tarwad is therefore vitiated by this error of law, (b) the karnavan has under the Malabar law full power of disposal over moveables and his having assigned a decree more than five years old for adequate consideration in order to realize the fruits of the decree was in the usual and proper course of management, and it was also within those powers of the karnavan which cannot be controlled by the junior members and mere notice that junior members are charging the karnavan with acting against the interests of the tarwad cannot prevent title to moveable (or a decree debt) property sold by the karnavan and within his powers of disposal as karnavan from vesting in the third person who purchases for consideration without himself being guilty of any fraud against the tarwad.

6. So far as the first question as to whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the decree amount belongs to the tarwad is concerned I t