N SREEDHARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Notification No. 1598/45, the Secretary to the Travancore Government on 9.7.1945 had brought into force a set of rules defining the conditions of Viruthi service and the duties of the Viruthi holders with the sanction of His Highness Maharaja. Changes were so brought about in the rules, which held the field till then having been brought into force on 19.10.1898. The Viruthis retained were those for rowing Royal Cabin boats and for the performance of Velakali and certain other personal services. The Rules provided for the eventuality of succession as well. For the purpose of this case, R.10 might be relevant, which could be extracted herein below:

(2.) The lands so assigned were known as Erayili. In respect of Patta No. 23, pertaining to Ullur Village, the Erayili was originally assigned during the settlement, in the name of Kumaran Velayudhan of Arakkal Veedu, Ulloor Village. They were in respect of services to be made available to Sri Padmanabha Swami Temple and Subramanya Swami Temple. He had died in 1954, but no transfer of registry was effected. A dispute had arisen as about the person who was entitled to hold the land and it had been resolved by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum on 31.12.1959. One Parameswaran Pillai Krishna Pillai had been assigned the Erayili Patta taking note of the circumstance that he was the eligible member of Arakkal family for whom the viruthi stood assigned.

(3.) It is not disputed that such rights were inalienable and on the death of the Pattadhar was to go over to the senior most family member, as had been suggested by R.10, extracted earlier, Sri. Krishna Pillai, who was known as Viruthicar, passed away on 2.1.1981. On a claim that he was the most eligible person who was to be assigned the patta, one Sreedharan Nair, the petitioner herein, had made an application to the Revenue Department for transfer. He staked a claim, though he was second in rank in the Marumakkathayam tarwad which was the family to which Viruthi was assigned, since his elder brother Ramakrishna Pillai, due to personal reasons was not interested in getting such rights. It had been submitted that in view of relinquishment made by the elder brother Ramakrishna Pillai in his favour, he had a rightful claim. Simultaneously, claims had been agitated by one Vasudevan Pillai, who claimed to be the senior most member of the family of Viruthicar Krishna Pillai. It appears that on later stages Vasudevan Pillai had withdrawn all his claims. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer his claim in detail in these proceedings. Sri. K. Chandrasekharan Nair, the 9th respondent herein, also had agitated claims for assignment of the properties, he being the eldest son of deceased Krishna Pillai.