A member of a tarwad and a co-owner is entitled to bring a suit for recovery of wrongfully alienated properties, and the alienations must be supported by consideration and necessity. The condition of filing a scheme suit as a condition precedent for the execution of a recovery decree by an indigent person is unjustified in law.

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 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-in-law 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 senior-most member of the tarwad is entitled to be in management of the Devaswom and its properties.

4. The court below found that the alienations effected by the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 10 were not supported by consideration, necessity or benefit to the Devaswom. The first defendant was guilty of mis-management and is liable to be removed from management of the Devaswom and its properties. The plaintiff is held entitled to sue on behalf of the tarwad, but being an indigent person, the decree granted in his favour for recovery of the devaswom and its properties on behalf of the tarwad was subject to the condition that either the plaintiff or any other member of the tarwad has to file a suit for the framing of a scheme for management of the temple and its properties and the decree can be executed only after such a suit is filed. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross objections against the above restriction imposed on him as a condition precedent for executing the decree.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri N. Venkatarama Iyer has strongly urged that a suit for recovery of the Devaswom properties alienated is not maintainable except on behalf of the deity and since the suit has not been filed on behalf of the deity, the same is liable to be dismissed. We see no force in this submi