Judgment :- 1. Two questions arise for decision in this case: (i) whether the karanavan of a marumakkathayam tarwad can be compelled to render accounts for the income of the tarwad and (ii) the period for which he can be held liable under the Indian Limitation Act. 2. The plaintiff, a junior member of a marumakkathayam tarwad, sued for partition of tarwad properties and one of the items sought to be partitioned was a sum of Rs, 30,000/-alleged to have been misappropriated by the first defendant, the karanavan, from the income of the tarwad. The first defendant denied liability to account for such income. The court below held that the first defendant would be held liable in respect of the specific items disclosed by the accounts to have been misappropriated by him within a period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The point raised in this appeal by the plaintiff is that the court below erred in limiting the period to three years and that the same should have been six years under Art.120 of the Limitation Act. The first defendant by a memorandum of cross objections attacks this part of the decree and contends that he cannot be made liable to render accounts of the income of tarwad properties. 3. The main question for decision is the one raised in the memorandum of cross objections. It is useful in this connection to refer to the relevant averment in the plaint, which is contained in Para.7. It is stated: "The first defendant has been the karanavan and manager from the time he attained majority. He has been misappropriating the income of the tarwad ever since that time and the amounts misappropriated by 11th April 1956 exceeds Rs. 30,000/-. This sum is shown as item No. 38 in Schedule C of the plaint. This has to be treated as an asset of tarwad and divided", (translation). 4. The case put forward is not that any specific item of tarwad property was wasted or misappropriated by the first defendant but that the surplus income of the tarwad was being appropriated by him for his own use. One of the most important rights of the karanavan is the right to be in possession of the tarwad property to the exclusion of all other members of the tarwad. One of the most important rights of the karanavan is the right to be in possession of the tarwad property to the exclusion of all other members of the tarwad. As the head of the family, he manages the tarwad affairs, meets its expenditure and maintains the members of the family. He is not legally liable to render accounts to the junior members though in a suit for his removal from management, he may be called upon to prove how he spent the tarwad income. This does not mean that a decree can be passed against him for unaccounted items of income. It has been held from very early times that a karanavan is not a trustee or an agent of the tarwad. Holloway J., said in I. L. R. I Mad. 153: "In such a state of property & family relations as that of Malabar there must be constant conflict of interest with duty. This however throws upon the Courts in case of such conflict the duty of checking acts referrable to interest of that character, but it by no means justifies the treatments of the karanavan as a mere trustee, officer of a corporation or other person to whom he has been likened." In I. L. R.2 Mad. 328 Kerman and Forbes, JJ., held: "....the suggested analogy between a trustee and a karanavan is not correct in as much as a mere trustee has no personal interest in the estate whereas the karanavan has such interest." In Mayne's Hindu Law it has been pointed out that the property is vested in the karanavan not as agent or principal partner but almost as an absolute ruler. Not being a trustee or agent, the question of accounting does not arise, except as pointed out earlier, as a defence in a suit for his removal. If a karanavan appropriates the income for himself without properly maintaining the other members of the family, the junior members are not without any remedy as they can sue for his removal, and in such a case the question whether the income has been properly applied becomes relevant for deciding whether be should be so removed. In such a suit, a defence that he can spend the income as he pleases is ineffectual. This was the position recognised by courts in the areas where the marumakkathayam system prevailed, from very early times. In such a suit, a defence that he can spend the income as he pleases is ineffectual. This was the position recognised by courts in the areas where the marumakkathayam system prevailed, from very early times. and the subsequent statutory enactments have not effected any change in the law. 5. Our attention was drawn to the decision in Manavedan & Others v. Viayathen Sreedevi & Others (A. I. R.1927 Mad. 422). After reviewing the earlier decisions of the Madras High Court, Jackson J., has summarised the position as follows: "The karanavan is the manager of the family estate. He may administer that estate for the benefit of the family according to his own discretion. He is not bound to render any account or to pay to the tarwad any surplus he may have in his hands. Kenath Puthen Vittil Thavazhi v. Narayanan, which of course does not mean that he may devote the surplus to other than tarwad purposes, but only that he need not distribute it among the individual members, if in his discretion he prefers to accumulate or invest it for the benefit of the family as a whole. If it be proved against him that he has abused this discretion and fraudulently misappropriated the family estate, he must account for that transaction. If it be proved generally that he is a bad manager, he will be liable to removal, unless he gives a good account of his management. But he cannot be compelled actually to render accounts, by a threat of removal, or for any other reason." 6. If an asset of the tarwad is fraudulently alienated by the karanavan, it is open for the junior members to question the same. Thus if a karanavan conserves the surplus income for some time and acquires some property for the tarwad, he is not free to alienate it, merely because it was acquired with the income which he was not bound to account for. In such a case it ceases to retain the nature of income and is a capital asset in respect of which he has certain duties. Such is not the case here. All that the plaintiff wants is that the first defendant should render accounts for the period of his management so that amounts received by him as income of the property which has not been accounted for may be recovered from him. Such is not the case here. All that the plaintiff wants is that the first defendant should render accounts for the period of his management so that amounts received by him as income of the property which has not been accounted for may be recovered from him. No specific act of fraud or misfeasance in respect of tarwad property is alleged by the plaintiff. Such a prayer is against the fundamental principles of marumakkathayam law. 7. It follows that the decree for accounting for the income of three years prior to the institution of the suit cannot be sustained. In view of this conclusion the question of limitation does not arise. 8. In the result, we set aside the decree for accounting for the period of three years prior to the institution of the suit. The appeal fails, and is dismissed. The memorandum of cross-objections is allowed. In the circumstances we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.Advocates.