By Notification No.1598/45, the Secretary to the Travancore Government on 9-7-1945 had brought into force a set of rules defining the conditions of Viruthi service and the duties of the Viruthi holders with the sanction of His Highness Maharaja. Changes were so brought about in the rules, which held the field till then having been brought into force on 19-10-1898. The Viruthis retained were those for rowing Royal cabin boats and for the performance of velakali and certain other personal services. The Rules provided for the eventuality of succession as well. For the purpose of this case, rule 10 might be relevant, which could be extracted herein below:

"10. If a registered holder dies, the holding may with the sanction of the Assistant Peishkar be transferred to his heir, viz. the next senior male member in the family. In the event of the registered holder dying heirless, the holding may be transferred to any other competent persons willing to perform the services, provided that if such a registered holder is a Marumakkathayee and has sons the holding shall be transferred to such of his sons as may be willing to perform the services, preference being given to the senior one among them. If the land so transferred is found to be in the possession of any person other than the one in whose name transfer of registry is ordered and if the latter applies for delivery of possession, surrendering his rights over the land in favour of Government to enable them to proceed under the Land Conservancy Act against the occupant, he may, under the orders of the Assistant Peishkar, be proceeded against under the Land Conservancy Act and evicted and the land handed over to the person in whose name Viruthi is transferred by the Assistant Peishkar and the land shall thereafter become a viruthi holding as before."

2. The lands so assigned were known as Erayili. In respect of patta No.23, pertaining to Ullur Village, the Erayili was originally assigned during the settlement, in the name of Kumaran Velayudhan of Arakkal Veedu, Ulloor Village. They were in respect of services to be made available to Sri Padmanabha Swami Temple and Subramanya Swami Temple. He had died in 1954, but no transfer of registry was effected. A dispute had arisen as about the person who was entitled to hold the land and it had been resolved by proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum on 31-12-1959. One Parameswaran Pillai Krishna Pillai had been assigned the Erayili Patta taking note of the circumstance that he was the eligible member of Arakkal family for whom the viruthi stood assigned.

3. It is not disputed that such rights were inalienable and on the death of the Pattadhar was to go over to the senior most family member, as had been suggested by rule 10, extracted earlier. Sri. Krishna Pillai, who was known as Viruthicar, passed away on 2-1-1981. On a claim that he was the most eligible person who was to be assigned the patta, one Sreedharan Nair, the petitioner herein, had made an application to the Revenue Department for transfer. He staked a claim. Though he was second in rank in the Marumakkathayam tarwad which was the family to which Viruthi was assigned, since his elder brother Ramakrishna Pillai, due to personal reasons was not interested in getting such rights. It had been submitted that in view of relinquishment made by his elder brother Ramakrishna Pillai in his favour, he had a rightful claim. Simultaneously, claims had been agitated by one Vasudevan Pillai, who claimed to be the senior most member of the family of Viruthicar Krishna Pillai. It appears that on later stages Vasudevan Pillai had withdrawn all his claims. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer his claim in detail in these proceedings. Sri. K. Chandrasekharan Nair, the 9th respondent herein, also had agitated claims for assignment of the properties, he being the eldest son of deceased Krishna Pillai.

4. The property in question comprised of 15 cents of land in Sy.No.1026