AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff sues upon a lease granted by the 2nd defendant, the senior of two grantees in Putravakasam.
It is argued that a lease by the senior member alone is invalid, and reliance is placed upon certain observations of Moore and Sankaran Nair, JJ. in
Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar ILR (1906) M. 322. They have been considered and explained in the judgment of this Court
A. No. 26 of 1905. The learned Judges who decided the case Koroth Amman Kutli v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar ILR (1906) M. 322 are not to
be understood as negativing the view that the senior member amongst the grantees has the right of management which a Karnavan would have in
respect of the properties obtained by gift. Such a view would run counter to the decision in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee ILR (1890)
M. 201. In Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar ILR (1906) M. 322 the question under consideration was whether the grantees
and their descendants became a new Tarwad in respect of the gifted properties. In saying that they did not, the learned Judges did not purport to
hold that the senior member amongst the grantees has not the right of management. If they are to hold the properties like a Tarwad there must be a
single manager as incident to it. The lease is therefore valid. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.