KUNJAN ACHUTHAN PILLAI Vs. PADMANABHA PILLAI KRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the second defendant in a suit for recovery of property with arrears of pattom filed on behalf of the Manjummel Devaswom by the representatives of the Oorallar tarwads. The grounds urged in appeal are that the suit is not maintainable and that the appellant is entitled to enhanced value of improvements.

(2.) With regard to the maintainability, it is contended that the lower courts were wrong in rejecting the objections raised on the ground that the second plaintiff was not entitled to represent his Oorallor tarwad being only a junior member and on account of the non impleading of the Sirkar on the demise of the 4th plaintiff when the rights of his family escheated to the Sirkar. With regard to the first point the second plaintiff is one of the signatories to the plaint and had come forward as the rightful representative of his family. There is no evidence to prove the contrary and the concurrent findings of the lower courts on that point are not liable to be interfered with. As regards the second point, the fact that the 4th plaintiff was the last surviving member of his tarwad is not questioned. What is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs is that on his demise the remaining plaintiffs were competent to continue the proceedings and rights vested in the Sirkar only after a proper enquiry and orders to the effect that the rights of the family had escheated to the Sirkar. Here there is no evidence of any final order of escheat having been passed by the Government. Chakkrapani Warrier v. Kandan (17 TLR Appendix 38) is cited on behalf of the appellant to show that when all the Oorallers were not on the array of parties the suit was vitiated. That decision deals only with the question of the rightful parties at the initiation of the suit. It does not go into the point as to whether when all parties were there when the suit was filed, on the demise of one the others were competent to continue the proceedings. The observations there in the last paragraph are only to the following effect:-

(3.) Then there is the claim regarding value of improvements. The additional value claimed is Rs. 483-1-6 out of which Rs. 465-1-6 is claimed as value of cost of levelling and Rs. 18 as the value of three non bearing cocoanut trees. The property consists of paddy fields. There is no reliable evidence regarding levelling which can be considered as improvement to be valued. The commissioners report is based upon the statement of the defendant. There is no ground to interfere with the finding of the lower courts that no value can be awarded on that basis. Coming to the value of the three trees the lower appellate court has rejected it on the ground that they can be transplanted being recent plantations. I do not think it is proper to refuse the value on such a ground. Hence it is held that the appellant is entitled to additional value of Rs.18 as per the commissioners report for those three trees.