Sadasiva Aiyar, J - (1.) It is clear to my mind that the Karar Exhibit B dated in 1892 deprived the 2nd defendant of his Karnavastanam though with his consent and vested the office in the 1st defendant. The fact that the tarwad (including the new Karnavan) gave the management of a temple and its income to the removed Karnavan did not affect the other results of the Karar, namely, the putting an end to the tenure of the second defendant s office as Karnavan and the appointment of the first defendant to the said office. The supercession of second defendant s rights by the family Karar cannot, of course, be affected by any subsequent unilateral act or expression of intention on his part.
(2.) The 1st defendant became not only the de facto Karnavan but also the de jure Karnavan under the Karar and he can therefore be removed by suit for gross misconduct.
(3.) As soon as a Karnavan ceases to be such by death or removal, the next in order of seniority becomes the Karnavan, and any family Karar binding on the person who has ceased to be the Karnavan ceases to have, any affect on the new Karnavan except perhaps where he has himself agreed in that Karar to be bound by those restrictions whenever he succeeded to the stanom." There is no scope for the framing of a scheme of management by a Court under those circumstances. This was all that I. intended to express in Cheriya Pangi Achan v. Unnalachan .;