SARADA Vs. CHAKKUNNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by the heirs of the deceased plaintiff, arises out of their application for bringing them on the record, as legal representatives of the deceased. But it raises an interesting question relating to the application of the traditional Hindu Law of Kerala to the determination of the petitioners' status as the legal representatives. The question arises out of the facts set out in Para.2, 3 and 4 below.

(2.) The petitioners, Sarada and Subhadra, are the daughters of the sister of Velayudhan, son of Mundatharayil Krishnan, the sole plaintiff in G.S. 144 of 1990 instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Trichur, in which a decree in favour of the plaintiff was made. Firstly, the decree dated 30-11-1985 declares that: (i) the property surrounding the temple, the temple itself and the "accessories" are the common property of the Mundanthara tarwad which includes the plaintiff and the defendants; and (ii) every member of the tarwad has a right to worship and perform ceremonies in the property set out in the schedule to the plaint, which includes the land surrounding the temple. Secondly, the decree perpetually injuncts the defendant No. 1 from obstructing the plaintiff and other members of the tarwad in the worship and performance of ceremonies in the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. Thirdly, the defendant No. 1 and members of his family are restrained from using the property appurtenant to the temple for residence. Fourthly, the defendant No. 1 and the members of his family are ordered to dismantle and remove the building constructed by them in 1978.

(3.) The respondent defendants preferred an appeal to the District Court, Trichur which was registered as Appeal Suit No. 61 of 1986. During the pendency of the appeal Velayudhan died. The petitioners made an application registered as Interlocutory Application No. 1976-87 and prayed that they be brought on the record of the appeal as the legal representatives of Velayudhan. The learned District Judge rejected the application on this ground:-