The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of the Cochin Revenue Recovery Act to the Paliam Estate did not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and was advantageous to the tenants.

1. O.P. 6/1950 is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that "the Court may be pleased to order the Government of the Travancore-Cochin State and the Paliam Manager under the Government not to proceed under the Cochin Revenue Recovery Act to recover arrears due to the Paliam from the petitioner or from the Paliam tenants."

2. The Paliam is an ancient Nair Tarwad of the erstwhile Cochin State. In the year 1095, the Cochin Nair Act, XIII/1095 was passed which, in chapters 6, 7 and 8, made provision for the management of the tarwad, the partition of properties, and for the constituting of tarwads impartible. In 1097 the Paliam Tarwad Act, VIII/1097 was passed, the preamble whereof is as follows:

"Whereas the Paliam Tarwad is the most ancient family in the State of Cochin, having its long family traditions of prestige and of usage conductive to its dignity and position, and whereas some of the provisions of the Cochin Nair Act, XIII of 1095 cannot be made applicable to the said Tarwad and its properties without affecting its position and the welfare of its tenants; it is hereby enacted as follows:".

S.3 of the Act saves the Tarwad from the operation of Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the Nair Act and S. 4 provides that:

"The tarwad property shall be managed and administered in accordance with the Karar as modified by the provisions of this Act."

That karar is an appendix to the Act. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the karar read as follows:

"2. The Council shall consist of five members of whom the Valia Achan and Cheria Achan by virtue of their position and the Chief Manager by virtue of his office shall be ordinary members, while the other two shall be nominated extraordinary members.

3.Of the extraordinary members one shall be the Chief Court Vakil who is the legal adviser of Paliam for the time being and the other shall, if possible, be a pensioned officer of the Cochin Government not below the grade of a Tahsildar or Munsiff."

On 15.3.1111 His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin issued the Paliam Proclamation, whereunder the management of the Paliam Estate was assumed by the Government. Act VIII/1097 was kept in abeyance during the period of such management and by Cl. (8) it was provided that:

"The provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, IV/1083 with all its amendments shall, during the period of management of the Paliam Estate by Our Government, apply for the recovery of dues due to that estate whether now in existence or accruing due in future."

On 14.3.1123 His Highness the Maharaja promulgated a Proclamation extending the period of such management for a further period of twelve years. Cl. (8) of that Proclamation runs thus:

"The provisions of the Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, IV of 1083 shall apply for the recovery of dues already accrued due or accruing due in future in respect of the Estate during the period of its management by our Government."

Act VIII/1097 and S.10 of the Proclamation of 1123 were repealed by Act VIII/1124 which provides that the management of the Paliam Estate by the Government will continue until partition of the Estate, which was desired by the members of the Tarwad and which was rendered possible by the aforesaid repeal, is actually complete.

3. The petitioner is a tenant under the Paliam. He filed O.S. 14/1119 on the file of the District Court, Anjikaimal for a declaration that he is not in arrears. The suit was dismissed as not maintainable by the District Judge, against whose decree, A.S. 95/1120 on the file of the erstwhile Cochin High Court was filed. This also was dismissed but with an observation to the effect that as the Government is in management of the Paliam estate the petitioner could get redress of his grievance by approaching the authorities concerned, and should the authorities not mete out justice to him the law provides him redress and remedies and the Court will not be slow to interfere should proper grounds therefore be made out. On 24.8.1950 the petitioner filed O.S. 18