ment of the tarwad property such as in the case "'( before us, that .is, where the Karnavan has left the country for an indefinite p· eriod or taken up a /\ job in another country which. would keep him away for years from his mother country, there must be someone who could look after the family property and who would .have the power to manage it. If delegation of the Karnavan's .power .of management is regarded a.a incompetent the necessary -"' result would be that the interests of the family would suffer. It is by no means a practical propo· sition to expect the family members to approach t the Karnavan, whim he is at some far .off corner, for his consent in reg\U'd to each and every transaction, be it sale, mortgage or lease. Again it ml).y be too expensive for the Karna.van to coine all the way back to his native place whenever an ocm1sion arises for alienating or encumbering the 'Tarwad property for family necessity. No recognised con,;;. cept underlying the Marumakkatt.ayam law will '< j be violated by holding that an agreement or karar entered into by the Karnavan and the members of the family by which the power of management of the tarw"'cl carrying with it the duty to decide during the absence of the Karna van . whether a particular alienation should be effected for meeting a family necessity is deltJgated to Jtukthiar so that he. can exercise that power with the concurr·~ ence of the adult members during the absence of : the Karnavan as and whea occasion arises is a :) perfectly valid agreement. Un the oth11r hand to · hold that this is permissible would be in consonance with the concept of joint ownership by an the m,embers of the Tarwad properties and with the settled legal position that the powers , of a Karnavan could be r!lstrioted by, the consent of ...:. all, which, of course, inclucjes the. consent of the '( Karnavan himself. The execution of a power of attorney of this kind would, in effect, be a restriction placed by a family karar on the power of the Karnavan. The delegation merely of a power
