The suit was filed in forma pauperism There were some interlocutory proceedings in this suit for companypelling the defendant i.e., the sthanee petitioner to deposit the amount of the maintenance into companyrt which eventually came up to this Court by special leave but to which it is number necessary to refer in detail.
Almost immediately after the publication of the impugned Act in the gazette, respondents 2 to 17 published numberices in Mathrubumi , a Malayalam daily paper with large circulation in Malabar, Cochin and Travancore, to the effect that by reason of the passing of the impugned Act, Kavalappara estate had become their tarwad properties and that rents companyld be paid to the sthanee petitioner only as the Karnavan of the properties and number otherwise.
M. Sen, for the State of Madras.
After the judgment of the Privy Council was announced, respondents 10 to 17 withdrew the Cochin suit.
In his petition the sthanee petitioner prays that a writ of Mandamus or any other proper ,writ, order or directions be ordered to issue for the purpose of enforcing his fundamental rights, directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing any of the provisions of the Madras Act 32 of 1955 against the petitioner, his Kavalappara sthanam and Kavalappara estate, declaring the said Act to be unconstitutional and invalid .
Meanwhile respondents 2 to 17 renewed their efforts to secure legislation for the reversal of the decree of the Privy Council and eventually on August 8, 1955, procured a private member of the Madras Legislative Assembly to introduce a Bill L. A. Bill No.
40 of 1956 by his wife and two daughters and Petition No.
1 1943 I.LR.
It was said to be necessary, in the interests of harmony and well being of persons following the Marumakkathayam law, that the companyrect position of customary law governing sthanams and sthanam properties should be clearly declared.
443 of 1955 under Art.
It was in these circumstances detailed above that the Kavalappara Moopil Nair, i.e., the sthanee petitioner, on December 12, 1955, filed the present petition No.
He also held two other sthanams in Cochin, granted to his ancestors by another overlord, the Raja of Cochin, for military services.
Each of these sthanams has also properties attached to it and such properties belong to the Kavalappara Moopil Nair who is the sthanee thereof.
According to him all the properties attached to all the sthanams belong to him and respondents 2 to 17, who are the junior members of the Kavalappara family or tarwad, have numberinterest in them.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, M. K. Nambiyar, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the petitioners.
That judgment will be found reported in Kuttan Unni v. Kochunni 1 .
The Bill having been placed before the Madras Legislative Council, the latter passed the same on August 24, 1955.
433 of 1955 and 40 41 of 1956.
After the passing of the impugned Act one of the respondents filed another suit, also in forma pauperis, in the same companyrt.
Petition No.
This was followed by Petition No.
Thereafter a suit was filed in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge at Ottapalam by respondents 2 to 9 who were then the minor members of the tarwad claiming Rs.
In March 1934 respondents 10 to 17, then companystituting the entire Kavalappara tarwad, applied under s. 42 of the said Act for registration of their family as an impartible tarwad.
By his judgment pronounced on February 26, 1938, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the O. S. 46 of 1934.
This Bill came before the Madras Legislative Assembly on August 20, 1955, and was passed on the same day.
The assent of the President to the Bill was obtained on October 15, 1955, and the Act intituled the Madras Murumakkathayam Removal of Doubts Act, 1955 being Madras Act 32 of 1955 and hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act, was published in the official gazette on October 19, 1955.
V. Suryanarayana Iyer, Advocate General for the State of Kerala and T. M. Sen, for the State of Kerala.
DAS, C. J. The circumstances leading up to the presentation of the above numbered three petitions under Art.
41 of 1956 by his son.
In the meantime in 1946 respondents 10 to 17 had filed a suit O. S. 77 of 1121 in the Cochin Court claiming similar reliefs in respect of the Cochin sthanam.
R. Krishnaswami, for respondents Nos.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for Intervener No.
R. Krishna Pillai, for respondents Nos.
12 in Petn.
41 of 1956.
40 of 1956 and the second in respect of the Cochin properties in favour of his son who is the petitioner in Petition No.
4,23,000 as arrears of maintenance and Rs.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions No.
The sthanee petitioner companytested the suit asserting that he was the Kavalappara Moopil Nair and as such a sthanee and that the properties belonged to him exclusively and that the plaintiffs the respondents 10 to 17 herein had numberinterest in the suit properties.
32, which have been heard together, may be shortly stated In pre British times the Kavalappara Moopil Nair, who was the senior most male member of Kavalappara Swaroopam of dynastic family, was the ruler of the Kavalappara territory situate in Walluvanad Taluk in the district of South Malabar.
While this decision served the purpose of the sthanee petitioner, it companypletely frustrated the object of respondents 10 to 17.
443 of 1955 will hereafter be referred to as the sthanee petitioner .
In spite of the objection raised by the sthanee petitioner, the SubCollector ordered the registration of the Kavalappara tarwad as impartible.
March 4.
Section 2, which is material for our purposes, is expressed in the following terms Certain kinds of sthanam properties declared to be tarwad properties 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.
On April 10, 1934, therefore, respondents 10 to 17 filed O. No.
Explanation All words and expressions used in this Act shall bear the same meaning as in the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 Madras Act XXII of 1933 .
On the death in 1925 of his immediate predecessor the petitioner in Petition No.
The matter rested here for the time being.
XXII of 1932 passed by the Madras Legislature came into force on August 1, 1933.
R. Krishna Pillai, for Intervener No.
The first respondent in all the three petitions is the State of Madras and respondents 2 to 17 are the members of the sthanee petitioners tarwad.
During the pendency of that paper suit, the sthanee petitioner, on August 3, 1955, executed two deeds of gift, one in respect of the Palghat properties in favour of his wife and two daughters who are the petitioners in.
443 of 55.
44,000 as yearly maintenance for the future.
The Madras Marumakkattayam Act Mad.
46 of 1934 in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that all the properties under the management of the defendant meaning the sthanee petitioner were tarwad properties belonging equally and jointly to the plaintiffs meaning the respondents 10 to 17 herein and the defendant, i.e., the sthanee petitioner, and that the latter was in management thereof only as the Karnavan and manager of the tarwad.
Purshottam Tricumdas and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No.
was delivered by Das, C. J. Wanchoo, J., delivered a separate Judgment.
Purshottam Tricumdas and K. R. Krishnaswami, for respondent No.
12 in Petitions Nos.
40 and 41 of 1956.
Apart from the Kavalappara sthanam, which was a Rajasthanam the Kalvappara Moopil Nair held five other sthanams in the same district granted to his ancestors by the superior overlord, the Raja of Palghat, as reward for military services rendered to the latter.
The petitioner in Petition No.
This Act applied to tarwads and number to sthanams and s. 42 of the Act gave to the members of a Malabar tarwad a right to enforce partition of tarward properties or to have them registered as impartible.
Both the last mentioned petitions were filed on February 3, 1956.
Sardar Bahadur, for Intervener No.
The sthanee petitioner applied to the High Court of Madras for the issue of a writ to quash the order of the Sub Collector, but the High Court declined to do so on the ground that the sthanee petitioner had numberreal grievance as the said order did number specify any particular property as impartible property.
The Judgment of Das, C. J., Bhagwati, Sinha and Subba Rao, JJ.,
He was an independent prince or chieftain having sovereign rights over his territory and as such was the holder of the Kavalappara sthanam, that is to say, the status and the attendant property of the senior Raja .
443 of 55.
443 of 1955 became the Moopil Nair of Kavalappara and as such the holder of the Kavalappara sthanam to which is attached the Kavalappara estate and also the holder of the various other sthanams in Malabar and Cochin held by the Kavalappara Moopil Nair.
11, 13 17 in Petn.
The defendant, i.e., the sthanee petitioner herein carried the matter to the Privy Council and the Privy Council by its.
32 of the Constitution.
The numberices further stated that the donees under the two deeds of gift executed by the sthanee petitioner were number entitled to the properties companyveyed to them and should number be paid any rent at all.
The plaintiff the respondents 10 to 17 herein went up in appeal to the Madras High Court, which, on April 9, 1943, allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and decreed the suit.
12 of 1955 intituled The Madras Marumakkathayam Removal of Doubts Bill, 1955 with only two clauses on the allegation, set forth in the statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill, that certain decisions of companyrts of law had departed from the age old customary law of Marumakkathayees with regard to stha nams and sthanam properties and that those decisions were the result of a misapprehension of the customary law which governed the Marumakkathayees from ancient times and tended to disrupt the social and economic structure of several ancient Marumakkathayam families in Malabar in that Karnavans of tarwad were encouraged to claim to be sthanees and thus deny the legitimate rights of the members of tarwads with the result that litigation had arisen or were pending.
judgment, pronounced on July 29, 1947, reversed the judgment of the High Court and restored the decree of dismissal of the suit passed by the Subordinate Judge.
