DR. C. ANNACHERIAM AND ANOTHER versus ACHUTHA MENON AND OTHERS

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 986 · Decided: 03-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
Commi•siontr of 
J ntom~·kix 
v. 
JlylOf't SU?Gr Co., 
Ltd. 
ll'ilaJ•lullah J. 
J96t 
Ma.13. 
986 
SUPREME OOURT REPOH.lS [1963) 
year's orop and paying an amount in advance out 
of the price, so that the growing of the crop may 
not suffer due to want of funds in the hands of 
the growers. There was hardly any element of 
investment which contemplates more than payment 
of advance price. The resulting loes to the ass~esee 
Company was just as much a lose on the revenue 
side as would have been, if it had paid for the 
rP-ady crop which waa not delivered. 
In our judgment, the decision of the High 
Court is right. 
The appeal fails, and is dismissed 
with costs .. 
.Appeal dismissed. 
Dr. C. ANNACHl<~RIAM AND A~'OTHER 
v. 
ACHLJTHA MENON AND OTHER) 
(A. K. SARKAR. K. SU"BBA 
RAO and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Mammal:l«Jtta~am Law-Karnaron-Power of delegaiicm 
-Emnt-1/indudu right to manage property and du•ieB aris-
ing in connection with management o/ tarrrad-Marumakkattayam 
Act. 1932 (Mad. 22 o/ 1933), •· 33. 
A karnavan of a tarwad who was leaving for Bornes 
where he had taken up a job, appointed one M, who was· 
the second senior most anandravan, as his 
mukthia,. by 
executing a power of attorney, for the reason that the senior 
most anandrat'an was av.·ay in Madras. 
Tl e said mukthiar in 
conjunction with other adult members of the tarwad sold 
several properties of the ta,.,etid for discharge of debts of the 
r 
• 
ta,.,iad, under the said power of attorney, 
including the 
~ 
property in suit. 
; 
The karnamn along with two minor members of the 
tancad brought a 1uit for setting aoide registered assignment 
... 
., 
J. S.C.R. I SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS, 987 
deed executed by his said mul:thiar and all other adult mem· 
hers of the tarwa4. 
-
'The Trial Court held that the ·'sale in favour of !st 
respondent was binding on the.,,,,.,,,,,,. _and dismissed -the suit. 
On appeal the High Court reversed the decree. 
While it 
held the sale was justified on the ground of necessity it came 
to the conclusion that the transaction was not binding on the 
ta1lilad because the karnaron had not joined in . it. .The 
power of attorney executed by the karnaron 
in favour 
of the mukthiar 
cannot be .effective as deltgation 
to 
the · mukthiar 
of the karnavan'a 
power 
with respect 
io the tarwad property and, thtreforr, the transaction must 
fail as an act of the tarwad. 
It was contended that thOugh the Karnavan can under a 
family' Karar delegate_ his right to manage the property to 
another, he cannot delegate the petformance of the duties 
arising in connection with the management of the tarwad and 
that therefore it was not competent for the defendant No. 3 
acting as mukthiar of the Karnavan, to-eflbt the sale in asso; 
ciation with other adult .members of the tarwad. 
, 
Held, that by a family Karar Karnavan'a power of 
management_ can be restricted and also that a Karnavan'a 
power of management can be delegated, so long as what is 
delegated is not totality of the powers enjoyed by a Karnavan 
by virtue of his status. . The properties belong to all the 
members of the tarwa<i and that apart from . the right of 
management· the Karnavan has no larger right or interest than 
the other members. 
That by :vir(ue of his status the KiJl'fl(JVan owes certain 
f' 'duties to the incmbers of the tarwail and one of such duties 
11 to manage the properties in the best interest of the members. 
-;_ 
Those to wi:\om the duties .are owed may find that in _their 
own _ interes_t the duties can be best .performed by an 
At1aftdravan, iii particular circumstances. These would be good 
-"'ai61is · to- justify the delegation of a Karnavan'• power of 
management to an An<Jn4ravim by a family K{],f'ar. Thus 
wherc_Ior some reasori t_he Karnavan, is-not able to discharge 
his dtities in respect ot· the management of.the T<Jrwad pro· 
pcrty, there must be someone who could look after it and who • 
>c 
would have the power to manage it. If the delegation of the 
KaWi<wan'• power of management iS regarded as incompetent 
the neccs!la,Y ~esult would be that the interests of the family 
would suffer •. 'It is by no means a practical 'proj>o!iition to 
expect the famlly members to approach the K<J\n<Jvan, when 
he is at some far oft corner, for his consent in regard to each 
and every traiiaaction, be it sale, mortgage or lease'~ 
C, Annacht1'ia m 
.. 
~'~Iha M aio11 
988 
SUPREME OOURr REPORTs [1963] 
An agreement (or Kamr) entered into 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.