1. Revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 5 in a suit pending before the Sub Court, Pala.

2. Suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs', for a declaration that plaint schedule properties belong to a private trust of religious and charitable nature constituted for beneficial interests of the members of a tarwad and for removal of the trustee - the 1st defendant, for framing a scheme for the administration of the trust and other incidental reliefs. Competency of the plaintiffs to institute the suit questioned by the defendants, and on directions issued by this Court on orders passed in two revisions, separately, filed against interim orders passed in the suit, to consider as a preliminary issue whether plaintiffs are members of the tarwad and their competency to file the suit, that issue was considered preliminarily by the learned Sub Judge. Evidence was recorded for consideration of that issue, in which plaintiffs examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited Exts.A1 to A3. No evidence was let in by the contesting defendants. On the materials placed, learned Sub Judge holding that plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4, who are descendants of some members of the marumakkathayam tarwad, even after partition of the properties of such tarwad where some properties are left in common constituting a trust for beneficial interests of the members of tarwad, continue to be tenants in common of such properties, and as such, they have competency to institute the suit for the reliefs claimed. That order is challenged by two among the defendants filing this revision.

3. Pending revision, 1st and 2nd respondents, passed away and legal heir of the 1st respondent have been brought on record as additional 19th respondent and those of 2nd respondent, as additional respondents 12 to 15.

4. Some of the facts involved in the case are not disputed by both sides. An ancient marumakkathayam Nair tarwad, namely, Pandiyankal in Thalappalam Muri, which had five sakhas, viz., Pandiyankal, Puthuvayil, Njalliath, Kuruthanad (Erumathanam) and Akkal, got disrupted by Ext.A1 partition deed dated 28.01.1104 (ME) effecting a division of its properties in favour of the sakhas. 'A' schedule properties in Ext.A1 deed except some properties included therein situate in Poonjar Village, which, then, was under litigation, were set apart for the beneficial interests of the family styling it as ‘kudumbayoga’ to perform religious ceremonies in places of worship belonging to tarwad and such other functions of spiritual nature. Properties described in 'A' schedule, except those situated in Poonjar Village, have to be retained as trust properties and never to be partitioned or alienated was the covenant in Ext.A1 partition deed. Subsequently in respect of properties partitioned under sakha wise, in course of time, further partition deeds were executed by members of those sakhas. Ext.A2 deed is one such partition deed executed by the wife and children of 5th executant in Ext.A1 partition deed, after his death, in respect of his properties which he got under a subsequent partition deed effected among members of his sakha. The members of the tarwad later executed another partition deed, Ext.A3 dated 18.07.1954, in which, properties of tarwad in Poonjar Village which were left undivided in Ext.A1 partition deed, was divided. In that partition deed, some additional provisions were made for management of the trust constituted under Ext.A1 partition deed providing among others formation of a committee, performance of certain religious matters and also for removal of committee in case of mismanagement, and appointment of another committee in its place. Committee to be formed for management of the trust has to consist of five members, one each from the five sakhas of tarwad.

5. So far as the constitution of trust to which some properties of tarwad had been set apart under Ext.A1 partition deed and also provisions made later under Ext.A2 p