ORDER:- This petition by the heirs of the deceased plaintiff, arises out of their application for bringing them on the record, as legal representatives of the deceased. But it raises an interesting question relating to the application of the traditional Hindu Law of Kerala to the determination of the petitioners' status as the legal representatives. The question arises out of the facts set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 below.

2. The petitioners, Sarada and Subhadra, are the daughters of the sister of Velayudhan, son of Mundatharayil Krishnan, the sole plaintiff in G. S. 144 of 1990 instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Trichur, in which a decree in favour of the plaintiff was made. Firstly, the decree dated 30-11-1985 declares that: (i) the property surrounding the temple, the temple itself and the "accessories" are the common property of the Mundanthara tarwad which includes the plaintiff and the defendants; and (ii) every member of the tarwad has a right to worship and perform ceremonies in the property set out in the schedule to the plaint, which includes the land surrounding the temple. Secondly, the decree perpetually injuncts the defendant No. 1 from obstructing the plaintiff and other members of the tarwad in the worship and performance of ceremonies in the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. Thirdly, the defendant No. 1 and members of his family are restrained from using the property appurtenant to the temple for residence. Fourthly, the defendant No. 1 and the members of his family are ordered to dismantle and remove the building constructed by them in 1978.

3. The respondent-defendants preferred an appeal to the District Court, Trichur which was registered as Appeal Suit No. 61 of 1986. During the pendency of the appeal Velayudhan died. The petitioners made an application registered as Interlocutory Application No. 1976-87 and prayed that they be brought on the record of the appeal as the legal representatives of Velayudhhan. The learned District Judge rejected the application on this ground:-

The right to worship in the temple which is the subject-matter of the suit, belongs to Mundanthara tarwad. The parties to the suit are Ezhavas following Makkathayam law of succession. Consequently, the members of Mundanthara tarwad done could have any rights in respect of the temple. In his opinion the petitioners did not belong to this category of persons and therefore were not "necessary parties". In substance, the learned Judge held that the petitioners are not the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. It is not clear what the learned Judge means by "accessories". But, I take it that by "accessories" he means appurtenances.

4. Admittedly, the plaintiff and defendants are members of the Mundanthara tarwad which belongs to Ezhava community governed by Makkathayam system. In a partition effected in 1908, the tarwad was divided into three thavazhies. But the property which is the subject-matter of the suit was kept undivided because the temple in question was situated in the property, the intention being that all the members of the tarwad should continue to worship in the temple. All the members of the tarwad used to worship and offer pooja at the temple as they are alone entitled to do so. But in April, 1978 the defendant No. 1 without any right constructed house in the property thereby violating the rights of the members of the tarwad and attempted to obstruct the worship by other members. This necessitated the suit in which the decree set out in paragraph No. 2 was made.

5. Marumakkathayam Law as administered by the courts mainly on the west coat of South India including the State of Kerala is a body of Customs and usages which has received judicial recognition and may be taken to be well-settled on most matters.1 No doubt, it belongs to a school of Hindu Law but it has its own system of heirs and succession. Marumakkathayam system of Law is founded on Matriarchy whereas all other schools of Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document