Pulinholiyil Murikoli Raman Nambiar v. Puthalath Kakkotan Raman Nambiar

The learned District Judge's view seems to be that the alienee from a Karnavan under a Melcharth granted before the expiry of the terms mentioned in previous kanom deeds need not prove adequate necessity for the grant of such a Melcharth and that even if the Melcharth was not a “wise” transaction, it cannot be set aside at the instance of the succeeding Karnavan unless it is proved that it was a transaction intended to benefit the karnavan or his sons at the expense of his family or to defraud the Tarwad. This view is opposed to the decision of this Court in Cheria Chirikandan v. Krishnan Nambiar and Second Appeal No. 877 of 1911. The Melcharth cannot be upheld unless there was adequate necessity or unless the grant of it was beneficial to the Tarwad. The learned Judge's decision is vitiated by his having misdirected himself on the law governing the consideration of the question involved. We set it aside and remand the case for the decision of the appeal before him de novo. The costs in this Court will abide and follow the result.

Appeal allowed.