Karippala Alias Varipayur … vs Muchai Manakal Sankaran … on 26 February, 1909

JUDGMENT

1. The father of the second plaintiff has renounced the Karnavanship of the family of which he was the head, and we are of opinion that when he ceased to be Karnavan of his family he ceased to be Uralan of the Devasom of which the Karnavan was always the trustee. The Uraimaship is incident to the Karnavanship and unless the Uraimaship is expressly reserved in such cases it passes to the next Karnavan.

2. The second plaintiff as the Karnavan of the family is, therefore, also a trustee of the Devasom.

3. The renewals of the leases are not binding on the Devasom as they were not granted bona fide in the usual course of management.

4. These second appeals are dismissed with costs.