MADHAVAN DAMODHARAN Vs. GOVINDAN KUNJU
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 7 in a suit for redemption appeal against the decision of the lower appellate court confirming the trial court's decree allowing redemption. The plaintiff claimed right to redeem the half right in the mortgage covered by Ext.VII and subsequent purakkadams, the other half right having been redeemed already. According to him, he obtained an assignment of the right in equity of redemption as per Ext. B dated 6.1.1120 by one Krishnan who traced his rights through Ext.C dated 6.10.1105, being a sale deed executed by the then karnavan of the jenmi tarwad, namely, Kunju Panicker. The main question that arises for consideration is whether Ext. C is vitiated because it is executed only by the Karnavan and not by all the adult members and hence the defendants questioned the right of the plaintiff traced through the said deed. The deed came into existence after the Travancore Ezhava Act of 1100. So the defence contention is that the deed in question does not satisfy the requirements of S.21 of the said Act and hence no party can seek any relief based upon such a deed. Here Kunju Panicker, the Karnavan is the only executant though the senior-most anandravan is an attestor to the document. But the defendants are strangers to the tarwad to which the property belonged. S.21 of the Ezhava Act is intended to safeguard the interests of the tarwad and not for the benefit of third parties. Strangers cannot question the validity of a deed on the ground that it does not comply with the requirements of the said section. This principle has been laid down in a number of decisions of our court. In Ayedrose v. Abdulkadir (1952 K.L.T. 695) the question whether a stranger to the tarwad can challenge a deed on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of S. 22 of the Ezhava Act of Travancore came up for consideration. At page 696 adverting to this point it is observed as follows:-
"Besides, the first defendant who was a stranger to the tarwad could not raise this contention and the law on the point is also well-settled. It is admitted that the karnavan of the mortgagor's tarwad is a party to the deed. A similar case came up for consideration in Krishna Panicker v. Bhargavi Amma (29 T.L.J. 1375) and it was held that as the karnavan had executed the deed and as he represented the tarwad so far as the outside world was concerned it had to be taken that the sale deed impeached in that case was executed by competent persons and that a stranger to the tarwad could not invoke the provisions of S. 25 of the Nair Act which was in force then to defeat a purchaser whose right would be indefeasible in the absence of those provisions. That was the dictum laid down in an earlier case, Krishnan Krishnan v. Raman Neelakantan (4 T.L.J. 134). The above S. 25 of the Nair Act corresponds to S. 22 of the Ezhava Act. The corresponding provision in the Marumakkathayam Act of Cochin State had also come up for consideration and it was held that strangers to the tarwad were incompetent to question the validity of transactions entered into by the tarwad or by some members of the tarwad including the karnavan".
So it is clear that here the defendants cannot question the validity of Ext. C. Hence it follows that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the lower courts.
(2.) IN the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.