CHATTAN RAJAH AVERGAL Vs. RAMAN VARMA ALIAS KOLATHOOR 5TH RAJAHMOOTHAYIL, VALLABHAUCHETTAM KOIL KURUVIKUL ALIAS MANKATA KOVILAGATHVALLABHAN CHATTAN KOVIL KURUVIKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Walluvanad Swaroopam there are nine stanoms. The first five of them are known as 3 M. 384 (P.C) : 5 Ind. Jur. 542 : 8 L.A. 149 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 259 the Walluvanad Vallabhan Valiya Raja Stanom,11 M. 106 at p 112 Vellalpat Raja,16. Ind. Cas. 839 : 36 M. 570 : 12 M.L.T. 188 : 23 M.L.J. 269 : (1912) M.W.N. 912 Thachalpat Raja, 16 Ind. Cas. 365 : 40 C. 173 : 16 C.L.J. 202 : 17 C.W.N. 137 Etathrapat Raja and 29 M. 390 (F.B.) : M.L.T. 183 : 16 M.L.J. 307 the Kolatlioor Raja Stanam. There are two other stanoms known as the Patinharakara Raja and the Kizhakkakara. In addition to these seven there are two female stanoms known as the Kalathoor Tliamburatti Stanom and the Katamien Moothayil Tbamburatti Stanom. It is admitted that, with regard to the first five stanoms mentioned above, the senior in age belonging to the four Kovilagams attached to the Swaroopam ordinarily succeeds. These four Kovilagams are the Mangada Kovilagam, the Aripra Kovilagam, the Katanna Manna Kovilagam and the Ayiranazhi Kovilagam. The mode of succession is regulated in this way : On the occurrence of a vacancy in any one of the stanoms the next in rank fills that place : when the fifth stanom is vacant the senior in age from one of the four Kovilagams succeeds to it. As regards the Kizhakkekara and the Patinharakara stanoms, the Subordinate Judge has gone into the history of their origin. I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of deciding this case to ascertain whether they were off-shoots of the Ayiranazhi Kovilagam, whether the appointment to these two stanoms is by the last holder of the stanoms or whether it is by the Kolatlioor Raja or by the senior of all the stanom-holders, the Valia Raja : nor is it necessary to consider whether these stanoms can be held only by members of the Ayiranali Kovilagam. I, therefore, do not propose to follow the Subordinate Judge into a consideration of these questions. There is no question in this case regarding the two female stanoms and it is not necessary to deal with them, at all.

(2.) In 1895 the- first defendant in this suit was holding the Patinharakara Raja. On a vacancy having occurred in the fifth stanom he succeeded to it. Since 1895 on the occurrence of vacancies in the other stanoms he had moved up, with the result that at the time of the suit he was holding the third stanom. Disputes arose in consequence of the first defendant having occupied the fifth stanom. As a Malikana allowance was attached to it, under the direction of the Revenue Authorities the Tahsildar took statements in 1896 from the members of the swarupam in regard to the succession. These will he referred to later on. In 1898 the present 3rd defendant claiming the right to exclude the first defendant on the ground that he was holding the Patinharakara stanom brought Original Suit No. 14 of 1898 (Exhibit XXV) for a declaration of his right. Mr. Venkataramana Pai, the then Subordinate Judge, held that the 1st defendant was rightly in possession and that the third defendant was not entitled to oust him. In appeal (Exhibit XXVI) the District Judge concurred in this view. In second appeal (Exhibit VIII) the High Court called for a finding as to whether the first defendant was in possession of the properties attached to the office and on the return of that finding held that a suit for a bare declaration without seeking further relief will not lie. The second appeal was dismissed upon that sole ground. The present plaintiff, alleging that this right as senior in the four Kovilagams to succeed to the fifth stanom accrued to him in 1903, brought this suit for a declaration that he is so entitled and that the first defendant had no right to hold any of the five stanom The first defendant pleaded that the fact of his holding the Patinharakara stanom was not a disqualification for his succeeding to the fifth stanom. He further conteinded that the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge decided that the first defendant had no right to any of the live stanoms. He also held that the plaintiff s suit was not barred by limitation and gave a decree to the plaintiff as prayed for. The first defendant has presented this appeal.

(3.) Before dealing with the questions arising in this ease it is necessary to understand the nature of the office of a stani and its legal attributes. The late Mr. Justice Sundara Aiyar in an article on. Topics of Malabar Law stanoms" contributed to the Madras Law Journal (vide 13 M.L.J. 161) discusses this question at some length. He says in page 163 :