The court established that a customary right of burial may not necessitate formal registration but is subject to public interest considerations.

JUDGMENT

The defendants in a suit for declaration of a customary right of burial in the plaint schedule property have come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs claimed that they are members of the ‘Kalladi community’, a separate sect among Harijans, and are residents of Munniyoor Village. According to them, the plaint schedule property known as ‘Valiyil Chudala’ is a burial ground used by members of the Kalladi community. The members of the Kalladi community have buried their dead from time immemorial and using the land as their graveyard without interruption as a matter of right. The owners of the land had given the land for use as a burial ground to the members of the Kalladi community who were landless prior to the advent of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The defendants are having land adjacent to the plaint schedule property and are trying to annex the property into theirs and the defendants have no such right to do so. The defendants 1 to 4 filed a written statement disputing the identity of the property and contended that the property was never known as ‘Valiyil Chudala’ and there is no burial ground. A claim of ownership by the plaintiffs cannot be substantiated and the owners had not given this property to the particular community for burial. It was further contended that the property originally belonged to Kunjahammed who was the father-in-law of the 4^th defendant and Kunjahammed had gifted the land to Ibrahim Kutty, who was the father of the defendants 1 to 3 as per document No.322/74. Ibrahim Kutty had been in possession of the land prior to 1974 and after his death the property was partitioned among defendants 1 to 3 and there was a subsequent partition in the year 1984 and that the defendants are parties to the said document. The plaint schedule property was thus allotted to defendants 2 and 3 in the partition deed and only two bodies of the relatives of the plaintiffs were allowed to be buried in the plaint schedule property long before the past thirty years and that was only on permission and thus no customary right can be claimed. On behalf of plaintiffs PW1 to PW4 were examined and DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendants and Exts.B1 to B4 series documents were marked on the side of the defendants. No documentary evidence was produced on the side of the plaintiffs. Exts.C1 to C3(a) are the reports and plans submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. Exts.X1(a) and X1(b) are the files produced by the Munniyoor Grama Panchayath and Revenue Divisional Office, Tirur. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, especially Exts.C2 and C3, that there were remnants of the human bones inside the property and therefore they are entitled to succeed. As regards that the claim of title of the defendants, the trial court came to conclusion that the property was not identified by the Advocate Commissioner and no steps were taken by the defendants to prove the identity of the property and therefore, decreed the suit. Aggrieved the defendants preferred an appeal before the Sub Court, Tirur and by judgment dated 16.11.2010, the appeal was dismissed and hence the present appeal.

3. Though notice on admission was issued, this appeal remained in the files of this Court without admission. During the course of consideration of this appeal, on 15.01.2026, this Court felt that in the light of Exts.X1(a) and X1(b) files, the plaint sche