Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by defendants 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12 from a decree granting specific performance of an alleged oral agreement said to have been entered into on 9-11-1118 between all the adult members of the appellants' tarwad and the first respondent - plaintiff by which the former agreed to sell the plaint property to the latter. The plaint property consisted of paddy lands having an extent of 44 acres and 71 cents and the sale consideration said to have been agreed upon is the sum of Rs. 22,803-8 Chs. 8 cash. Out of this, it was alleged, that credit must be given for the sums of Rs. 1770/- and Rs. 1017-4-Chs. which have been alleged to be advanced by the first respondent to the tarwad. Defendants 1 to 12 are members of the tavazhi of the third defendant who is the mother of defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6,10 and 12. Defendants 7 to 9 are the children of the 6th defendant and the 11th defendant is the son of the 10th defendant. 1st defendant is the karnavan of the tarwad and the 2nd defendant the next senior in age. The suit was resisted by the appellants as well as other defendants and they contended that there was no concluded agreement as was alleged, that the agreement, if any, is not supported by consideration, that in any event it is prejudicial to the interests of the tarwad, that there was no necessity for the sale of the property and that no decree for specific performance should be granted. 2. The court below has granted the relief of specific performance and also found that credit should be given to the sums of Rs. 1770/- and 1017-4 Chs. 3. Counsel for the appellants urged before us all the contentions that were taken by them in the court below. We do not consider it necessary to deal with all of them in this appeal. Assuming, without deciding, that there was an agreement as alleged by the plaintiff - first respondent, the question to be considered is whether that agreement is supported by consideration and tarwad necessity. 4. Whether there is necessity for entering into such an agreement for the sale will have to be decided from the statement of the circumstances and the reasons given in Ext. 4. Whether there is necessity for entering into such an agreement for the sale will have to be decided from the statement of the circumstances and the reasons given in Ext. K, the sale deed engrossed in stamp paper, which, according to the first respondent - plaintiff, the members of the tarwad refused to execute, the allegations in the plaint and the evidence in the case. The circumstances and the reasons are given in Ext. K in these terms: 5. The allegations in the plaint regarding this matter are contained in Para.2 thereof and are similar to those stated in Ext. K extracted above. The evidence in the case has not advanced the case of the 1st respondent any further. 6. It is clear that the proposal was to convert immovable property into cash. The members of the tarwad, who are alleged to have agreed to this, had no specific property in mind which they intended to buy with the sale consideration for the plaint property. The inconveniences alleged in the enjoyment of the plaint property were not such as would justify the sale of the property and the consequent conversion of immovable property belonging to a tarwad into cash. The Karnavan of a tarwad has the authority and power to deal with cash practically as he likes, and to enable him to do so with reference to the consideration received by the sale of tarwad property would be against the interests of the tarwad. It was contended by the Advocate General who appeared for the first respondent that the sale consideration, though to be deposited in the Anchal Savings Bank in the name of first defendant - karnavan was in the control of the vendee since the document or the receipt relating to the deposit was to be entrusted with the vendee. We do not think that this is sufficient safeguard of the interests of the tarwad. If the money was immediately utilised for the purchase of another property, it would have been possible for the court to decide whether the sale of the plaint property and the acquisition of the new one was to the manifest advantage of the tarwad. In the absence of any such property being acquired, prima facie, the mere sale and the conversion of immovable, property into cash appear as acts against the interests of the tarwad. In the absence of any such property being acquired, prima facie, the mere sale and the conversion of immovable, property into cash appear as acts against the interests of the tarwad. That in transactions of this nature, where a property of a marumakkathayam tarwad is sold for the purpose of acquiring other properties, the question that has to be considered by the court is the manifest advantage to the tarwad resulting from such transactions, is not disputed and cannot be disputed. It has been so held in a series of rulings. Reference may be made to some of them. In Cheera v. Vasudeva Kammathi (XXXIII T.L.J. 489) it has been held "Acquisition of fresh property for the tarwad by alienating tarwad property is considered as binding on the tarwad only under special circumstances when such fresh acquisition was to the manifest advantage of the tarwad". and in Karunakaran Pillai v. Devakipilla (1953 K.L.T. 452) it has been held "Though an alienation of immovable property of the tarwad for acquiring other properties do not normally come within the course of management of the tarwad it may be upheld where the fresh acquisitions are shown to have been to the manifest advantage of the tarwad". In Kochukunju Kurup v. Chandramathi Amma (1959 K.L.T. 912) this court had to consider the question whether the alienation of tarwad property by the Karnavan for acquiring a mortgage right will be to the advantage of the tarwad. It was held that such a transaction is to the manifest disadvantage of the tarwad. The decision in Karunakaran Pillai v. Devakipilla (1953 K.L.T. 452) was followed and it was said with reference to that decision: "The learned judges have also emphasised that in those circumstances, cash will come into the hands of the managing member and it would be easy to dissipate that cash without the knowledge of anybody, and the interests of the tarwad will suffer". 7. The result of the transactions in this case would also enable the Karnavan, the first defendant, to dissipate the sale consideration which came into his hands and this is certainly not in the interests of the tarwad, much less to its manifest advantage. We, therefore, hold that there was no necessity proved in this case for the agreement to sell the plaint property. We, therefore, hold that there was no necessity proved in this case for the agreement to sell the plaint property. No question, therefore, can arise of specifically enforcing such an agreement and we disallow the prayer for specific performance. 8. There is an alternative prayer in the plaint for damages. If there is no valid agreement binding on the tarwad, there cannot be any question of the tarwad being asked to pay damages for the breach thereof and we, therefore, disallow this relief as well. 9. The only other question that remains to be considered is the claim put forward by the first respondent that in any case the tarwad may be directed to pay the sum of Rs. 1770/- and the sum of Rs. 1017/- 4 Chs. recited in Ext. K, which, according to the first respondent, have been received by the tarwad for tarwad purposes. It is alleged that Rs. 1429-4 Chs. 8 cash out of the former sum has been utilised for the purpose of acquiring a property by the tarwad in accordance with a registered document, Ext. T, of 1118. It is the case of the contesting defendants that the consideration paid for the acquisition of that property is from the income of the properties of the tarwad. It is an admitted fact that the tarwad is an affluent one and in the absence of clear evidence that there was necessity to borrow from the first respondent, we are not able to accede to the argument that the tarwad should be directed to pay this amount or the balance to make up Rs. 1770/-. "The karnavan as Dw.1 has also sworn that the amount utilised for Ext. T is not advanced by the plaintiff - first respondent. We are equally unconvinced that the first respondent has spent amounts for the conduct of the litigations in which the tarwad was interested. There is no reliable evidence in this case regarding the alleged spending of Rs. 1017-4 Chs. by the first respondent. Dw.1, the first defendant, has deposed that he spent money himself for the litigations. We, therefore, negative the claim of the first respondent for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1017-4-0. 10. However, it is admitted by the first defendant in his written statement and again in his deposition that amounts have been obtained by him for his personal use from the first respondent. We, therefore, negative the claim of the first respondent for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1017-4-0. 10. However, it is admitted by the first defendant in his written statement and again in his deposition that amounts have been obtained by him for his personal use from the first respondent. We, therefore, direct the first defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 1770/- to the first respondent and pass a decree for the same against the first defendant and his separate assets, if any. We allow interest on this amount from date of suit up to date of realisation at four per cent per annum. We are informed that there has been a partition in the tarwad and that the first defendant had been allotted a separate share. If so, that share too will be liable for the decree amount. 11. We allow this appeal. But we grant a decree against the first defendant and his separate assets for the sum mentioned above. In the circumstances of this case, we direct the parties to suffer their costs throughout. Allowed.