1. The question in this appeal is of the constitutional validity of S.7(3) of the Hindu Succession act, XXX of 1956. It is contended that the Section offends Art.14 of the Constitution and is therefore void. The only aspect of discrimination pressed into service is that while the members of the tarwad are given shares along with the sthanee in the sthanam properties, the sthanee is not given a share along with the members of the tarwad in the tarwad properties.

2. In the Mannarghat Sthanam there are two sub-sthanams - the Mooppil sthanam & the Elaya sthanam - of which this appeal concerns only the former. The sthanee, who held the Moopil sthanam at the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, had assumed the sthanam in March, 1940. It is not disputed that on becoming a sthanee he lost his rights in the properties of the Kunnathat Matampil tarwad of which he originally was a member. In 1944 the members of the tarwad instituted O. S. No. 51 of 1955 to partition the tarwad properties without conceding shares to the two sthanees. That suit has been decreed and partition worked out finally. In 1956 a member of the sthanee instituted another suit, O. S. No. 65 of 1956, for pa