The Kudiyatis were originally the tenant class.
409 of 1968 was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 20th July, 1973.
The plaintiff appellant herein, a member of the Patakkal tarwad, instituted an action before the Tahsildar, being the authority to decide civil disputes in the Lakshadeep Islands claiming his entitlement to the properties of Kandangalam tarwad on the extinction of the said tarwad and prayed for recovery of possession.
Later in 1958 the Kandangalam branch became extinct.
Incidentally, this particular litigation has a chequered career.
1999 Supp 5 SCR 371 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. These appeals by the grant of special leave arising out of the judgments of Kerala High Court focus enforcement of certain ancient customs prevalent in the Lakshadweep Territory.
Members of the Tarawad families emigrated to the Malabar Islands and founded families there.
Before proceeding with the matter any further on the factual score, be it numbered that the submissions of the parties were companyfined to three specific issues raised in the matters i whether Pattakkal is a branch of Pandambeli tarwad ii if so, can they claim properties of Kandangalam branch which stands extinct in 1958 and iii when a divided branch becomes extinct who companyld be the heirs to inherit its property obtained from the companymon and parent tarwad.
One family at Kiltan which emigrated from Agathi many generations ago is number regarded as Melacheri and always holds the Khaziship of the island.
The Ameni Tarawad families will intermarry with these related families and also with the Karanavar class on the Malabar islands but number with other classes.
The plaintiff s definite assertion in the plaint is that the Pattakkal tarwad is an undivided branch of Pandambeli tarwad of which Kandamgalam was another branch and as such on the extinction of the latter tarwad Pattakkal tarwad of which the plaintiff is a member is the sole surviving undivided unit of the original Pandambeli tarwad and its thus entitled to succeed to all the properties and the assets of Kandangalam by rights of reversion.
On chetalat Kiltan and Kadamath, with the exception of one family at Kiltan the people are all Melacheries who have migrated either form Ameni or from the companyst.
So also the Pattakal family at Androth is a branch of the Pondambelli, and the Manmel Tarawad of Kalpani is a branch of the Trupekal family.
It is also seen from Ext.
The dispute relates to certain properties which belonged to a tarwad called Kandangalam which became extinct on the death of its last member in the year 1958.
Their superior standing is number recognised by the Ameni islanders and when they visit that island, they have to companyform to the custom regarding Melacheri dress.
A brief reference to the factual matrix, would also be companyvenient and useful at this juncture.
Pandambeli is an ancient tarwad in Amini Island and admittedly became extinct in 1906.
On these numberthern islands those Melacheries who can read the Koran are styled Mukris and do number climb trees.
D4, that Abdul Kader Musaliar of Pandambeli moved another petition in 1905 for permission to companyvert some tarwad properties of Pandambeli into his Veliyasha properties and Kandanglam Kunbi Pakki and Radukkiyam Ammutty objected to that but numberody sought the companycurrence of the Pattakkal people.
The Melacheries were the landless tree climbers.
Thus the extinct idiyyakal family at Kavarathi was a branch of the Pondambelli family, while the Arenakada and Pudiyedan families are branches of the existence Ameni family of pudian.
Being aggrieved, however, the matter came up before the High Court in appeal and the High Court also did lend its companycurrence with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal without any interference and hence these appeals before this Court.
If Pattakkal was a companylateral branch of Pandambeli they should have been the first to be companysulted before companyverting tarwad properties into separate properties.
The Tehsildar dismissed the suit in the year 1963 and an appeal before the Appellate Authority, namely Development Officer of the L.M. A. Islands in terms of the provisions of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Civil Courts Regulation, 1965 came over to the file of the High Court at Kerala and the appeal registered AS No.
As a matter of fact Pandambeli people had number recognised Pattakkal as a branch of that tarwad and that Pattakkal people never claimed to be so and much less as having an interest in the properties given to Pattakkal Beeashabi by the Pandambeli Karanvan when she came from Androth after the damages caused at Androth due to floods.
The judgment as available on record companytains a detailed analysis of the practice and proeedure also as regards the entitlement of the parties.
In its judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Tehsildar and the matter was however remitted to the Sub Court Kavaratti for fresh disposal on merits.
