Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : These three connected petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution raise the question of the constitutional validity of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955 (Madras Act 32 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act). These petitions were heard by this Court on a preliminary question raised by the respondents and the judgment thereon was delivered on 4-3-1959. This Court rejected the preliminary objection and directed the petitions to be heard on merits, and pursuant to that order, these petitions were posted for disposal or merits.

2. The facts have been fully stated by Das, C. J., in the preliminary judgment and it would, therefore, be sufficient if the relevant facts pertaining to the questions raised were stated here.

3. The petitioner in Petition No. 443 of 1955 is Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni @ Moopil Nair. He is the holder of the Kavalappara sthanam to which is attached Kavalappara state situate in Walluvanad Taluk in the district of South Malabar. In pre-British times the Kavalappara Moopil Nair, who was the seniormost male member of Kavalappar Swaroopam (dynasty), was the ruler of Kavalappara territory. He had sovereign rights over his territory. Besides the Rajasthanam, the Kavalappara Moopil Nair held five other sthanams granted by the Raja of Palghat for rendering military services and two other sthanams granted to his ancestors by the Raja of Cochin for rendering similar services. Properties are attached to each of these sthanams. The petitioner s immediate predecessor died in 1925 and the petitioner became the Moopil Nair of Kavalappara estate and as such the sthanee of the properties attached to the various sthanams held by him. The petitioner in Petition No. 443 of 1955 will hereafter be referred to as "the sthanee". Respondents 2 to 17 are the junior members of the Kavalappara tarwad, and, according to the sthanee, they have no interest in the said properties.

4. In 1932, the Madras Marumakkathayam Act (Mad. Act XXII of 1932) came into force whereunder the members of a Malabar tarwad were given a right to enforce partition of tarwad properties or to have them registered as impartible. After some infructuous proceedings under the provisions of the said Act, respondents 10 to 17, who then constituted the entire Kavalappara tarwad, filed O. S. No. 46 of 1934 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that all the properties under the management of the sthanee were tarwad properties belonging equally and jointly to the sthanee and the members of the tarwad. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court of Madras on April 9, 1943, allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the Sub-ordinate Judge and decreed the suit. On further appeal to the Privy Council, the Board by its judgment dated 29-7-1947, restored the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The Privy Council found that the Kavalappara estate in Walluvanad Taluk was an impartible estate and that nothing had happened to alter the original character of the property in its relation to the members of the family. On that finding, the Privy Council held that respondents 10 to 17 were not entitled to the declaration they sought in that case. The result of that litigation was that all the properties in the possession of the sthanee were declared to be sthanam properties and that the members of the tarwad had no interest therein.

5. After the title of the sthanee was thus established, the Madras Legislature passed the impugned Act in 1955. Under the impugned Act, every sthanam possessing one or other of the three characteristics mentioned therein - it is common case that the impugned Act applies to the petitioner s sthanam - shall be deemed and shall be deemed always to have been properties belonging to the tarwad. The sthanee states that the impugned Act is ultra vires the Madras Legislature, void and inoperative and that the said Act cannot affect the rights