PATINHARKARA VALLABHAN CHATTAN RAJAH AVERGAL AND KURUVAYILKOVILAGATH M R RY VALLAVANANATHIKARA VALLABHAH VALI RAJA AVERGAL Vs. RAMA VARMA ALIAS KOLATHOOR 5TH RAJAH MOOTHAIYIL VALLABHAH CHATTAN KOVIL KURUVIKUL ALIAS MANKATA KOVILAGATH VALLABHAN CHATTAN KOV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the Walluvanad Swaroopam there are nine Stanams. The first five of them are known as (1) the Walluvanad Vallabhan Valiya Raja Stanam (2) Vallalpat Raja (3) Thachalpat Raja (4) Etathrapat Raja and (5) the Kolathoor Raja Stanam. There are two other Stanams known as the Patinharakara Raja and the Kizhakkekara. In addition to these seven there are two female Stanams known as the Kolathoor Thamburatti Stanatn and the Kattamen Moothayal Thamburatti Stanam. It is admitted that, with regard to the first five Stanams 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 stanams the next in rank fills that place; when the fifth Stanam is vacant the senior in age from one of the four Kovilagams succeeds to it; as regards the Kizhakkekara and the Patinharakara Stanams, 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 Stanams is by the last holder of the Stanams or whether it is by the Kolathoor Raja or by the senior of all the five Stanam holders, the Valiya Raja; nor is it necessary to consider whether these Stanams 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 Stanams 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 then occurred in the fifth Stanam he succeeded to it. Since 1895 on the occurrence of vacancies in the other Stanams he has moved up with the result that at the time of the suit he was holding the third Stanam. Disputes arose in consequence of the first defendant having occupied the fifth Stanam. As a Malikhana allowance was attached to it, under the direction of the revenue authorities the Tasildar took statements in 1896 from the members of the Swaroopatn in regard to the succession. These will be 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 Stanam brought O.S. No. 13 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 1st 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 his right as senior in the four Kovilagams to succeed to the fifth Stanam 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 stanams. The 1st defendant pleaded that the fact of his holding the Patinharakara Stanam was not a disqualification for his succeeding to the fifth Stanam. He further contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge decided that the first defendant had no right to any of the five Stanams.: He also held that the plaintiff s suit was not barred by limitation and gave a decree to the plaintiff as prayed for. The 1st defendant has presented this appeal.

(3.) Before dealing with the questions arising in this case 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-Stanams" contributed to the Madras Law Journal (vide 13 M.L.J. 161) discusses this question at some length. He says in page 163: "Whatever may be the origin of Stanam in any particular case, whether it was the result of public law, or owed its origin to a grant by the ruling chief to the holder of an office, or was merely the result of an arrangement amongst the members of a Tarwad for the maintenance of its social prestige and influence, the first essential of a Stanam is that the property vests not in the family of the holder but in himself individually and descends to the person who succeeds to his dignity. Another essential feature is that the stani s ownership and interest in the property of his tarwad ceases on his accession to the Stanam. His relationship and consanguinity with the family do not cease. For all purposes of religious, funeral and other cerernonies the stani continues to belong to the family," Then the learned writer points out that the accession to the staniship is not analogous to adoption under the Hindu Law. He says further that the stani and his tarwad " will have the same rights of succession to the properties of each other as if the severance from the family had been the result, not of his accession to the stanam, but of a voluntary division between him and the rest of the family" and that "the succession to a stanam is generally determined by priority of age". As regards the nature of the estate taken by the stani he observes : "The Estate taken by a stani in the Stanam property is a limited one. It is not a mere life-estate, for the stani is not only entitled absolutely to the income accruing during his life, but he has also the power of creating a. charge upon the estate or of alienating it where such charge or alienation is necessary or beneficial to the estate. His position may best be likened to that of a Hindu widow with respect to property inherited by her from her husband." The decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Venkataswara lyan v. Sekari Varma (1881) I.L.R. 8 M. 384 is in full accord with the above statement of the law. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee say in page 386 : " It appears that in the families of the Malabar Rajas it is customary to have a number of palaces, to each of which there is attached an establishment with lands for maintaining it, called by the name of a stanam. The Palghat family have no less than nine stanams. Each stanam has a raja at its head or Stanamdar. The Stanamdar represents the corpus of his stanom much in the same way as a Hindu widow represents the estates which have devolved upon her, and he may alienate the property for the benefit or proper expenses of the Stanam." The same view has been held by Muthusami Aiyar and Parker JJ. in Mahomed v. Krishnan (1887) I. L Rule 11 M. 106 at page 112. In order to be precise it must be pointed out that the Stanam is held either for the life of the Stani or of those in the grade above him : The Walluvanad Swaroopam, it is conceded, is not different in regard to the appointment of these Stanis from the Palghat Raja Stanams referred to by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkateswarn lyan v. Shekari Varma (1881) I.L.R. 3 M. 384.