PATTATHIL SANKUNNI MANNADIAR Vs. PATTATHIL KRISHNA MANNADIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in these cases is which of the two, plaintiff or the defendant, is entitled to the management of the Tarwad known as Kothukkotte in Kannadi Amsom and Desom, and as Pattathil in Mathoor Amsom and Desom of the Palghat Taluk. The court of first instance decided the question in favour of the defendant, whereas the lower appellate court has decided the point in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant accordingly has preferred these second appeals. To appreciate property the point in dispute, it is necessary to mention that in 1904 the Karnavan of the Tarwad was Parakunni Mannadiar and the next senior Anandravan was Gopala Mannadiar. Original Suit No. 11 of 1904 was instituted by 18 junior members of the Tarwad against Parakunni Mannadiar as the 1 defendant and Gopala Mannadiar as the 2nd defendant for the removal of Karnavan Parakunni Mannadiar, and also for the removal of the senior Anandravan Gopala Mannadiar on the ground that both of them were unfit to manage the Tarwad affairs. The plaint proceeded to state that the 1 plaintiff therein (Ravunni Mannadiar) would be the person who would be entitled to management if the defendants 1 and 2 were removed by the court, and there was a prayer that the 1 plaintiff Revunni Mannadiar should be appointed as manager. The plaint proceeded further to state that if for any reason the court should feel inclined to associate any other member of the tarwad with the 1 plaintiff in management, then the 1 plaintiff Ravunni Mannadiar should be appointed manager in conjunction with the third plaintiff. It must be mentioned that there was a second plaintiff in that case Sankunni Mannadiar who was senior to the third plaintiff Krishna Mannadiar but nothing was alleged in the proceedings in Suit No. 11 of 1994 about the 2nd plaintiff Sankunni Mannadiar. Issues were then framed about the removal of the 1st defendant and also about the removal of the second defendant in that suit. The seventh issue then framed ran as follows: Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 3 are unlit to be appointed managers?

(2.) The result of that litigation was that the first defendant Parakunni Mannadiar was removed from management, and the second defendant Gopala Mannadiar having died during the pendency of the suit, no question arose about his removal. Having found that there was no reason for not granting the prayer in the plaint regarding the management of the tarwad affairs by the first plaintiff in conjunction with the 3 plaintiff, the court passed a decree to the following effect: (1) That the 1 defendant be removed from management of the tarwad of the plaintiff and defendants. (2) That the 1 and 3 plaintiffs be appointed to the management.

(3.) Now the 1 and 3 plaintiffs in that suit continued to manage the properties of the tarwad till the 30 October, 1923; when the 1 plaintiff in the prior suit Ravunni Mannadiar died. The 3 plaintiff in that suit Krishna Mannadiar has instituted O.S. Nos. 283 and 284 of 1923, out of which the present second appeals have arisen for a declaration that he is, in the circumstances that now exist, entitled to manage the affairs of the tarwad and for collection of rent due by the defendant to the tarwad. The defendant to the present suit Sankunni Mannadiar (who was the 2nd plaintiff in Suit No. 11 of 1904) contends that as the admitted seniormost male member of the tarwad at present (excluding of course Parakunni Mannadiar, the karnavan who was removed by virtue of the decree in the prior suit), he is in law entitled as the present do jure karnavan to manage the tarwad affairs. The main contention of the plaintiff in the present suits, Krishna Mannadiar, is that under the terms of the decree in Suit No. 11 of 1904 he and Ravunni Mannadiar were appointed co-managers and that on the death of Ravunni Mannadiar he is entitled to the sole management. He further contends that Sankunni Mannadiar should be taken to have been removed from management since his claims were not recognised and since his junior, the present plaintiff, was appointed as manager. As already remarked, the court of first instance upheld the defendant's contention, while the learned Subordinate Judge has upheld the contention of the plaintiff.