SREEDEVI ANTHERJENAM Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but nice question of law has been raised and been argued also for some time. But, we feel that the question does not arise in this case. What is required is only a proper understanding and appreciation of the facts of the case.

(2.) The appellant, a Nambudiri woman by birth, was married to the tenth defendant of the Orozhiyath Illom, also a Nambudiri. On 10th July 1953, a partition under Ex. D2 was effected of the illom properties and three shares (the items in schedule C) were allotted as a sakha to the tenth defendant, his mother and the appellant. The appellant left her husband and entered into a marriage alliance under Ex. P1 with a Mahomedan on 12th November 1955, and some time thereafter, she embraced Islam too. On her marrying a Mahomedan, the Orozhiyath Illom performed a ceremony called Udakavicchedakarmam DZIhntÑZ IÀ 1/2w, by which the appellant's membership of the illom was severed. The appellant brought the suit giving rise to the appeal for a half share in the properties in schedule C, since, by the time the suit came to be filed, the mother of the tenth defendant died leaving only the tenth defendant and the appellant as members of the sakha. She claimed that she had proprietary interest in the properties in schedule C belonging to the sakha and by virtue of Travancore - Cochin Act 20 of 1950 (the Travancore - Cochin Removal of Civil Disabilities Act), which contained similar provisions in Central Act 21 of 1850. (the Caste Disabilities Removal Act), her apostacy did not take away that right, so that she was entitled to claim a share in the properties of the sakha, since, under Kerala Act 27 of 1958, a member of a Nambudiri illom obtained a right to claim his or her share separately. The contention on the other said was that, on her embracing Islam, she ceased to be a member of the illom and since Kerala Act 27 of 1958 conferring right to compulsory partition came only subsequently, on which date she was not a member of the illom, the right conferred by the Act could not have revived her proprietary right which she lost on her conversion. To be more precise, the contention was that, on her embracing Islam, she ceased to be a member of the illom and the right to compulsory partition conferred by Kerala Act 27 of 1958 benefited only persons who were members of an illom on the date the Act came into force.

(3.) The Additional District Judge considered this question and, agreeing with the contention of the defendants, dismissed the suit as not maintainable. His reasoning was that, on embracing Islam, the appellant lost her membership of her husband's illom, so that, when Kerala Act 27 of 1958 came into force, she was not a member of the illom with the result that she could not have claimed her share under S.14 thereof.