Later, with the formation of the State of Kerala, this area became part of that State and companytinued to be governed by the Act.
The impugned Act came into force on October 19, 1955.
443 of 1955 and 40 41 of 1956.
41 of 1956 is filed by Ravunniarath Rajan Menon, who is the son of the sthanee.
These gifts had been made before the impugned Act bad been passed.
He likewise made a gift of the lands attached to the two sthanams which had been granted by the Raja of Cochin to his son who is the petitioner in Petition No.
In pre British times the Kavalappara Moopil Nair, who was the senior most male member of Kavalappara Swaroopam dynasty , was the ruler of Kavalappara territory.
The Kavalappara territory was the Rulers Rajasthanam.
Whereas doubts have arisen about the true legal character of certain properties which are erroneously claimed to be or regarded as sthanam properties, but which are properties of the tarwad, the male members of which are entitled to succeed to the sthanam and it is necessary to remove those doubts in respect of this question Be it enacted in the Sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows This Act may be called the MADRAS MARUMAKKATHAYAM REMOVAL OF DOUBTS ACT,, 1955.
XXXII of 1955 .
On a further appeal to the Privy Council by the Moopil Nayar, the decision of the High Court was set aside and that of the Subordinate Judge restored.
443 of 1955 has been the Moopil Nayar of the Kavalappara family since his elder I.L.R. 1944 Mad.
The decision of the Judicial Committee was given on July 29, 1947.
This is the first of the eight sthanams mentioned earlier.
The Madras Marumakkathayam Removal of Doubts Act, 1955 Act No.
On August 3, 1955, the sthanee executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioners in the said petition in respect of properties granted to his predecessor by the Raja of Palghat.
443 of 1955, the Moopil Nayar or the senior member of the family.
The head of the Kavalappara family was entitled to five other sthanams granted from time to time by the rulers of Palghat to whom the Kavalappara State was subordinate.
Notwithstanding any decision of Court, any sthanam in respect of which a there is or had been at any time an intermingling of the properties of the sthanam and the properties of the tarwad, or b the members of the tarwad have been receiving maintenance from the properties purporting to be sthanam properties as of right, or in pursuance of a custom or otherwise, or c there had at any time been a vacancy caused by there being numbermale member of the tarwad eligible to succeed to the sthanam, shall be deemed to be and shall be deemed always to have been a Marumakkathayam tarwad and the properties appertaining to such a sthanam shall be deemed to be and shall be deemed always to have been properties belonging to the tarwad to which the provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 Madras Act XXII of 1933 , shall apply.
40 of 1956 is the wife of the sthanee, who has also been added as respondent 18 to this petition and petitioners 2 and 3 therein are their daughters.
443 of 1955 is the Moopil Nayar or the senior member of the Kavalappara tarwad or family to which the parties to this petition other than the States of Kerala and Madras, belong.
The donees under this gift are the petitioners in Petition No.
The petitioner in Petition No.
The Moopil Nayar or senior member of this family for the time being was the ruler of the Kavalappara State.
The defendant to this suit was the petitioner in Petition No.
On appeal, the High Court of Madras on April 9, 1943, allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and decreed the suit,.
brothers death in 1925 and claims the lands of the Rajasthanam as such.
443 of 1955 and seeks for the same reliefs.
H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the State of Madras.
That Act was never extended to any other part of Kerala and never applied to the territories companyered by the former Cochin State which had been merged in the State of Kerala.
The lands attached to the Rajasthanam and sthanams granted by the rulers of Palghat were situate in the South Malabar district which originally appertained to the State of Madras and is number part of the State of Kerala.
13 and 15 17 In Petn.
Purshottam Trikamdas and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondent No.
He had sovereign rights over his territory.
Act XXII of 1932 came into force where under the members of a Malabar tarwad were given a right to enforce partition of tarwad properties or to have them registered as impartable.
These petitions were heard by this Court on a preliminary question raised by the respondents and the judgment thereon was delivered on March 4, 1959.
In 1932, the Madras Marumakkathayam Act Mad.
The sthanee states that the impugned Act is ultra vires the Madras Legislature, void and inoperative and that the said Act cannot affect the rights of the sthanee or his estate to any extent.
B. Krishnaswami for respondents Nos.
Sardar Bahadur, for Intervener No.
After the title of the sthanee was thus established, the Madras Legislature passed the impugned Act in 1955.
The Kavalappara territory, however, companytinued as a Rajasthanam held by the Moopil Nayar or the senior member of the family for the time being.
As the head of.
the family he claimed to be entitled to eight sthanams with the lands attached to them respectively.
41 of 1956.
He is the holder of the Kavalappara sthanam to which is attached Kavalappara estate situate in Walluvanad Taluk in the district of South Malabar.
443 of 1955 claiming to be entitled to the sthanam lands situate in an area which was formerly part of the Cochin State.
The first respondent to the said petition is the State of Madras and respondents 2 to 17 are the members of the tarwad.
That question has number been gone into by companysent of the parties.
The result of that litigation was that all the properties in the possession of the sthanee were declared to be sthanam properties and that the members of the tarwad had numberinterest therein.
The judgment of Sinha, C. J., Subba Rao and Shah, JJ.,
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
An Act to remove certain doubts in the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 Madras Act XXII of 1933 , in regard to sthanams and sthanam properties .
The petitioner in Petition No.
46 of 1934 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that all the properties under the management of the sthanee were tarwad properties belonging equally and jointly to the sthanee and the members of the tarwad.
40 of 1956.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, S. N. Andley, B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P.L. Vohra, for the petitioners In all the petitions .
On farther appeal to the Privy Council, the Board by its judgment dated July 29, 1947, restored the judgment of the Subordinate Judge.
The result was that the petitioner, Moopil Nayar, was declared to be entitled as sthani to the disputed properties and it was held that those properties were sthanam properties and number tarwad properties.
443 of 55 .
The head of the Kavalappara family was also entitled to two further sthanams with the lands attached to them which had been granted by the ruler of Cochin.
After some infructuous proceedings under the provisions of the said Act, respondents 10 to 17, who then companystituted the entire Kavalappara tarwad, filed O.S. No.
The petitioner in Petition No.
The petitions were filed challenging the validity of the Act soon after it came into force.
The Privy Council found that the Kavalappara estate in Walluvanad Taluk was an impartible estate and that numberhing had happened to alter the original character of the property in its relation to the members of the family.
On April 10, 1934, the then junior members of the Kavalappara family filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that all the properties managed by the Moopil Nayar were tarwad properties belonging equally and jointly to all the members of the tarwad including the Moopil Nayar and that the latter was managing them as Karnavan and number as sthani.
443 of 55 .
The lands belonging to these two sthanams were situate in the former State of Cochin number merged in the State of Kerala.
40 41 of 56 .
was delivered by Sarkar, J. SUBBA RAO, J. These three companynected petitions filed under Art.
This Court rejected the preliminary objection and directed the petitions to be heard on merits, and pursuant to that order, these petitions were posted for disposal on merits.
On that finding, the Privy Council held that respondents 10 to 17 were number entitled to the declaration they sought in that case.
12 In Petn.
Each of these sthanams also had lands attached to it.
12 In Petn.
May 4.
Petition No.
The petitioner in Petition No.
At that time the South Malabar District was part of the State of Madras.
The facts have been fully stated by Das, C. J., in the preliminary judgment and it would, therefore, be sufficient if the relevant facts pertaining to the questions raised were stated here.
The petitioners immediate predecessor died in 1925 and the petitioner became the Moopil Nair of Kavalappara estate and as such the sthanee of the properties attached to the various sthanams held by him.
Properties are attached to each of these sthanams.
It shall apply to all persons governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 Madras Act, XXII of 1933 .
Under the impugned Act, every sthanam possessing one or other of the three characteristics mentioned therein it is companymon case that the impugned Act applies to the petitioners sthanam shall be deemed and shall be deemed always to have been properties belonging to the tarwad.
Respondents 2 to 17 are the junior members of the Kavalappara tarwad, and, according to the sthanee, they have numberinterest in the said properties.
Purshottam Trikamdas and M. B. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No.
The petitioner made a gift of the lands attached to the five sthanams which had been granted by the Raja of Palghat, to his wife and daughters.
The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for Intervener No.
The Moopil Nayar resisted the suit claiming to be solely entitled to the disputed lands on the basis that they were sthanam lands and he was the sthani.
443 of 1955 is Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nair.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondents Nos.
was delivered by Subba Rao, J. The judgment of Imam and Sarkar, JJ.
2 to 9.
11 and 14 In all the petitions .
V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for respondents Nos.
443 of 1955 will hereafter be referred to as the sthanee .
Besides the Rajasthanam, the Kavalappara Moopil Nair held five other sthanams granted by the Raja of Palghat for rendering military services and two other sthanams granted to his ancestors by the Raja of Cochin for rendering similar services.
V. Suryanarayana Iyer, Advocate General for the State of Kerala and T. M. Sen, for the State of Kerala.
When Malabar was ceded by Tippu Sultan to the East India Company in 1792, the Kavalappara family lost its sovereign rights.
The first petitioner in Petition No.
This petition raised the same questions as Petition No.
