SAVITHRI DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM Vs. KRISHNARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O. S.130 of 1964 are the appellants. They instituted a suit for partition under the following circumstances. The first plaintiff is a member of a Nambudiri Illom called Mangattu Illom. Defendants 1 to 31 are members of the said Illom and the suit properties belong to the said Illom. The first plaintiff in 1105 married Narayanan Poti belonging to South Canara. He is admittedly a Thulu Poti. Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of the first plaintiff by that marriage. The plaintiffs claim 7/38 shares in the plaint properties on the ground that in spite of the first plaintiff's marriage with Narayanan Poti she and her children continue to be the members of the Mangattu Illom and are therefore entitled to get 7/38 shares in the plaint properties because of the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 (Act 27 of 1958). S.2(b) of that Act defines Illom. S.2(b) and the Explanation thereto are relevant and we shall extract them:

(2.) The plea of the plaintiffs is that the husband of the first plaintiff Narayanan Poti being a Thulu Poti he is not a member of her community and therefore she continues to be a member of the Mangattu Illom. It was therefore argued that Narayanan Poti is not a Nambudiri and so long as the first plaintiff has not become a member of the Illom of her husband she continues to retain her interest in the properties belonging to Mangattu Illom. It is admitted that the marriage of the first plaintiff with Narayanan Poti was in 1105 even before the coming into force of the Travancore Malayala Brahmins Act (Act 3 of 1106). It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to decide whether a Thulu Brahmin is a Malayala Brahmin within the meaning of the Travancore Act 3 of 1106 or a Nambudiri within the meaning of the Kerala Act of 1958. It is settled law that Malayala Brahmins including Nambudiris are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law except to the extent modified by usage or custom or by statute. In Vasudevan v. Secretary of State (11 Madras 157 at pp. 160 161), it was observed thus: