PAZHANCHERI PANANGAT BLAHAYIL THACHUNNI NAIR Vs. PAZHANCHERI PANANGAT BLAHAYIL KARNAVAN AND MANAGER, UNNIAPPAN NAIR AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Pazhancheri Panangat Blahayil Thachunni Nair
Pazhancheri Panangat Blahayil Karnavan And Manager, Unniappan Nair And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE question which the Court has to consider in this case is whether Section 32 of the Madras Marumakkattayyam Act, 1932, has altered the customary law to the extent of permitting a suit for accounts to be filed against a karnavan.
(2.) THE appellant is a junior member of a tarwad of which the first respondent is the karnavan. He sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chowghat for a decree granting inter alia the following reliefs : (1) Ordering the karnavan to produce in Court within a date specified the daily accounts, ledgers, counterfoil receipt books, and vouchers relating to the income and expenditure of the tarwad from the 1st Kanni 1117 to the 31st Chingam 1117 (that is from the 17th September, 1941 to the 16th September, 1942) and (2) directing the karnavan to render true and correct accounts of all the income and expenditure and generally of the management of the tarwad since he became the karnavan. The District Munsiff considered that a Suit of this nature could now be brought by reason of the provisions of Section 32 of the Madras Marumakkattayyam Act. The karnavan appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam. The Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsiff that in the circumstances of the case the karnavan could be compelled to produce his books of account and relevant papers in Court, but disagreed with him on the question whether a suit for accounts lay. The Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that it did not and consequently modified the decree passed by the District Munsiff. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court. The karnavan accepts the legality of the finding so far as it directs him to produce his accounts in Court and we are informed that this part of the decree has been complied with.
(3.) SECTION 32 of the Act reads as follows: The karnavan shall keep true and correct accounts of the income and expenditure of the tarwad. The accounts of each year shall be available for inspection at the tarwad house by the major anandravans once in a year throughout the month of Kanni following such year and any such anandravan may take copies of or extracts from such accounts.
Clause (b) of Section 50 says that nothing contained in the Act shall be deemed to affect any rule of Marumakkattayam law, custom or usage except to the extent expressly laid down in the Act.
It is common ground that before the Act was passed a junior member of a tarwad was not entitled under the customary law to bring a suit for accounts against the karnavan. If the karnavan had caused loss to the estate by reason of his own act of misfeasarice or fraud, a suit requiring him to make good the loss would lie at the instance of a junior member of the tarwad; but the suit had to be based on some specific act of misfeasance or fraud. If in the course of such a suit it was proved that the karnavan had been guilty of misfeasance or fraud, he could be removed. The customary law is concisely stated in the judgment of this Court in Manavadan v. Sridevi, (1926) 52 M.L.J. 277 : , I.L.R. 50 Mad. 431.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.