STATE OF KERALA Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit are the appellants. They are the State of Kerala, the District Collector, Malappuram and the Tahsildar, Ponnani, respectively. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that he belongs to 'Paniyan' community, a Scheduled Tribe specified in relation to the State of Kerala in terms of Article?342?of the Constitution of India; that the community certificate issued to him to that effect has been cancelled by the second defendant in terms of Ext.A5 order; that Ext.A5 order has been affirmed by the Government in appeal in terms of Ext.A7 order, and that both Exts.A5 and A7 orders are illegal and unsustainable. The suit was, therefore, for a declaration that the plaintiff belongs to 'Paniyan' community and that he is entitled to the benefits available to 'Paniyan' community. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that Exts.A5 and A7 orders are illegal and unsustainable. The defendants resisted the suit, contending mainly that a suit of the instant nature is not maintainable. On merits, it was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff belongs to 'Paniyar' community and that 'Paniyar' community is not a Scheduled Tribe in terms of Art. 342 of the Constitution. The trial court found that the suit, in so far as it relates to the declaration that 'Paniyan' community is a Scheduled Tribe, is not maintainable. The court, however, took the view that the suit is maintainable in so far as it relates to the declaration that the plaintiff is a member of 'Paniyan' community. The court then went on to consider the question as to whether the plaintiff is a member of 'Paniyan" community and found that he is a member of that community. Consequently, the suit was decreed in part declaring that the plaintiff is a member of 'Paniyan' community. The defendants challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal. The plaintiff also challenged the decision of the trial court to the extent it went against him, by way of a cross objection in the appeal preferred by the defendants. The appellate court, on a re-appraisal of the materials on record, affirmed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal as also the cross objection. The defendants are aggrieved by the decisions of the courts below.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned amicus curiae appointed in the matter.

(3.) Placing reliance on the reliefs claimed in the suit, the learned Government Pleader asserted that a suit of the instant nature is not maintainable. According to him, the exercise undertaken by the trial Judge in dissecting the essential relief claimed in the suit while considering the maintainability of the suit was unwarranted and uncalled for. It was contended that the maintainability of the suit should have been decided by the court having regard to the essential relief claimed in the suit. According to the learned Government Pleader, had the essential relief claimed in the suit been understood by the courts below in its true sense, there would have been absolutely no difficulty in holding that the suit is not maintainable. The learned amicus curiae supported the said stand of the learned Government Pleader. She has also brought to my notice a number of decisions dealing with identical and similar issues.