KOCHARA PANICKER Vs. SEKHARA PANICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 is directed against the decree of the court below removing the first defendant from management of the Payikulangara Devaswom and allowing the plaintiff to recover the Devaswom and its properties on behalf of the Mootheri Kottaram tarwad of which the plaintiff and defendants I and 9 are members. Defendants 1 and 4 died pending the appeal and the third defendant is recorded as the legal representative of both these defendants.

(2.) The suit was filed on 18-11-1975 by the plaintiff as an indigent for removal of the first defendant from management of the Payikulangara Devaswom belonging to the Mootheri Kottaram tarwad. The first defendant is the Karanavan of the tarwad. The plaintiff is the next in seniority and the 9th defendant is another member of the tarwad. The Devaswom is a private Devaswom of the tarwad. The plaintiff sought also the recovery of the Devaswom and its properties from the first defendant and bis alienees defendants 2 to 6, 8 and 10. Para.5 of the plaint enumerates the various alienations effected by the first defendant and those alienations, according to the plaintiff are without consideration, necessity or benefit to the Devaswom or the tarwad and are therefore void. The first defendant has alienated the properties to his close relatives, be is guilty of mis-management and is therefore not entitled to continue in management of the Devaswom and its properties. Relief of recovery of possession is sought on behalf of the tarwad which owns the Devaswom. The 4th defendant is the son of the first defendant. The 3rd defendant is the wife of the 4th defendant. The second defendant is the brother of the third defendant. The 5th defendant is the son inlaw of the first defendant. The 6th defendant is the first defendant's uncle's daughter. The 7th defendant is a kudikidappukaran. The 8th defendant is a close relative of the first defendant and the 10th defendant is the son of the 4th defendant. The impugned alienations are all in favour of defendants 2 to 6, 8 and 10 who are all close relations of the first defendant.

(3.) The defendants raised the following contentions: The suit on behalf of the tarwad is not maintainable without impleading all the members of the tarwad. The tarwad has ceased to exist with effect from the date on which the Kerala Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 came into force, and no suit will lie on behalf of the erstwhile tarwad. The alienations effected by the first defendant and impeached in the plaint are all supported by consideration and were for the necessity or benefit to the Devaswom. The first defendant being the seniormost member of the tarwad is entitled to be in management of the Devaswom and its properties.