K KUTTAN UNNI Vs. KKOCHUNNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to this appeal are members of a Malabar tarwad. The appellants, who are the junior members, sued the respondent, who is the senior member, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that the properties in his possession belong to the tarwad and that he is merely in charge of them as the karnavan of the family. The properties are extensive and produce a large annual income. The respondent pleaded that they, belong to stanoms of which he is the stani and therefore the appellants were not entitled to the declaration asked for, although he admitted that they were entitled to be maintained out of the properties in his possession. The Subordinate Judge found for the respondent, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appeal is from this decision. The relationship between the parties is shown by the following geneological tree:

(2.) A tarwad is an undivided family governed by the Marumakattayam law, the customary law of Malabar. Its outstanding feature is that for the purpose of inheritance descent is traced through the female line. The property of the family is managed by the karnavan, who is ordinarily the eldest male member. Before the passing of the Marumakattayam Act, 1932, a member of a tarwad could not insist on a partition. A partition could only take place if all the adult members agreed. Before the passing of the Act the rights of members junior to the karnavan were merely these : (1) to succeed to the management; (2) to be maintained by the karnavan; (3) to object to improper administration of the property of the tarwad and to see that the property was duly conserved for the use of the tarwad; (4) to bar an adoption; and (5) to get each a share should a partition take place. This summary is taken from the treatise of the late Mr. P. R. Sundara Ayyar on "Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law." Mr. Sundara Ayyar was a Judge of this Court from 1911 to 1913 and his work is recognised as being authoritative. The Madras Marumakattayam Act, 1932, has made important changes din the customary law, but it is not necessary to enter upon a detailed survey. It will be sufficient for the purposes of this case to refer to Secs.32, 38, 43 and 44. Section 32 requires the karnavan to keep true and correct accounts of the income and expenditure of the tarwad and provides that the accounts shall be made available once a year for inspection by the major anandravans (members of a tarwad other than the karnavan). Section 38 makes provision for partition of tarwad property, subject to limitations which do not call for mention here. Section 43 permits two-thirds of the adult members of the tarwad to apply to the Collector for the registration of the tarwad as impartible and authorises the Collector, if satisfied that the petition is in order to register the tarwad as impartible. Section 44 allows two-thirds of the adult members of a tarwad registered as impartible to apply for the cancellation of the registration. The appellants applied for the registration of the tarwad under Section 43 and their action was resented by the respondent.

(3.) The word "stanom" according to Sundara Ayyar means the status and attendant property of senior rajas. In Moore's "Malabar Law and Custom" it is defined as a station, rank or dignity, and the definition in Wilson's "Glossory of India" is to the same effect. A stani is the holder of a stanom. The ancient rulers of the Malabar coast possessed stanoms and it may be taken that the lands which they held as rulers were regarded as being stanom in character. Rulers granted stanoms to their subsidiary chieftains and public officers. The grant of a stanom to a subsidiary ruler or public officer was usually accompanied by a grant of land for the maintenance of the dignity. In Mr. Sundara Ayyar's work a chapter is devoted to this subject and it is there pointed out that in addition to the families of princes and chieftains there were other families possessing stanoms without any particular dignity attaching to them. In ancient days when a family became opulent and influential the members of the tarwad sometimes agreed to set aside for the karnavan certain property in order that he might keep up his social position and influence and this property descended to the next head of the family. What was permissible in ancient days is not, however, permissible in these days. In Velia karmal V/s. Velluthadatha Shamu ( 73) 6 M.H.C.R. 401 this Court held that a tarwad cannot now create a stanom. It is an accepted rule that where there are properties attached to a stanom the stani has the right to utilise the income for his own purposes, and the members of the tarwad are not entitled to claim maintenance out of such income. In the present case, the respondent says that he is bound to maintain the members of the tarwad out of the income from what he claims to be stanom properties, but Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastriar, who appears for him, has not referred to any other case where the members of a tarwad have the right to claim to be maintained out of stanom properties. We consider that the respondent has made this assertion in an attempt to avoid the conclusions to be drawn from the judgments in two cases decided in 1818 to which reference will be made presently. It is also common ground that properties acquired by a stani out of the income of the stanom properties become on his death the properties of the kovilagam in which he was born, unless he has disposed of them or has shown an intention to attach them to the stanom. A kovilagam is a family residence of a ruler wherein junior members of a branch of the family live under the management of the eldest resident female of that particular branch : see Moore's "Malabar Law and Custom," Edn. 3, p. 355. In the family of which the parties are members there is only one kovilagam.