Kelu Achan vs Umala Achan and Others

The lower Courts have found that there has been a substantial increase in the income of the tavazhi property. We see no reason for holding that

the plaintiff should not have increased the ''mucharam'' in the circumstances. Nor are we able to say that the amount allowed is excessive. The

plaintiff''s suit is to recover arrears for five years; it is contended that the claim for the 1st and 2nd year is barred by limitation. This plea was not

raised in the Courts below. If it had been raised, the plaintiff might have been able to make a satisfactory answer to it. We cannot, therefore, allow

it to be raised here for the first time. We are of opinion, however, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the expenses for his medical

treatment from the karnavan of the tavazhi. It is the tarwad that is prima facie bound to look after the health of its members and the plaintiff would

have a valid claim against the karnavan of the tarwad for any expenses legitimately incurred for medical treatment. No special reason is urged why

the tavazhi should be held bound to pay in this case. We modify the decree of the lower Courts by disallowing Rs. 25, the amount awarded for

medical expenses of the plaintiff. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is confirmed in other respects. The appellant will pay respondent''s

costs.