Sallijib Kotakal Manakal Neelakandan Nambudri and Others vs Sallyil Kottakat Manakal, Karnavan and Manager Narayanan Nambudri and Others

This is a suit for a declaration that a Saswatham granted to the family of the 2nd defendant in 1897 is not binding on the Devaswom of which the

1st defendant, the managing member of the plaintiff''s tarwad and the 2nd defendant, the manager of the family of defendants Nos. 2 to 9, are the

Uralans. The Saswatham was granted by a karar executed between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant''s

family did not possess any Saswatham rights in these properties before. The grant of a Saswatham is prima facie an improper act. It has been

upheld in this case by the lower Courts on the ground that the Devaswom was not in a position to establish its title to atleast four out of the six

items of the properties comprised in the Saswatham. This finding is not open to any legal objection. With regard to item 2, one of the remaining

two items, the jenmam title of the Devaswom was admitted by the Karnavan of the 2nd defendant''s tarwad about the year 1863. According to the

admission, the tarwad was then holding it on a Kanom under the Devaswom.

Whether in 1897 the Davaswom was in a position to recover the property by proving that the Kanom was not made more than sixty years

before 1863, the date of the admission, appears to be very doubtful According to the finding of the Subordinate Judge, there is nothing to show

what the date of the Kanom was.

With respect to item 6, however, the case stands on a different footing. The Devaswom had actually obtained a decree in ejectment against the

2nd defendant''s tarwad. The 2nd defendant, though a minor at the time of the suit in which that decree was passed, was apparently a party to the

suit and he could not have recovered the property back except by establishing that the decree was not binding on him on the ground of fraud or

collusion. The position of matters then may be taken to be this: there were five items of property which it is not shown that the Devaswom could

have recovered from the family of defendants Nos. 2 to 9. The 1st defendant, who was the Uralan representing the plaintiff''s branch, entered into

a karar by which he got an acknowledgment of Devaswom''s jenmam title to these five items by giving a Saswatham over those five items as well

as over the 6th item, the Devaswam''s title to which had been established. The plaintiffs have not shown how much loss the Devaswom has

sustained by grant of the Saswatham over the 6th item. We are not prepared to differ from the lower Courts and to hold that the circumstances, on

the whole, do not warrant the finding that the Saswatham was for the benefit of the Devaswom. We cannot, however, conclude this judgment

without expressing our strong disapprobation of the grant of a Saswatham to a family, the Karnavan of which is one of the Uralans. Any

transaction by which a trustee obtains an interest in properties belonging to the trust is much to be deprecated; and, in our opinion, it is equally

vicious to allow the members of a tarwad, the Karnavan of which is a trustee, to acquire an interest in the properties of the trust. We have no

doubt that where transactions of this character could be set aside without injury to the trust, the Courts would be much disinclined to upheld them.

The circumstances of this case, however, are rather peculiar. The tarwad of the 2nd defendant was apparently in possession of the properties for a

long time before the grant of the Saswatham and the result of setting aside the karar which created the Saswatham''s right might be injurious to the

Devaswom, as the 2nd defendant''s tarwad might then be in a position to assert its own jenmam right to the properties. Mr. Anantakrishna Iyer

contends that the 2nd defendant''s tarwad itself was the trustee and that any previous possession on its part would be of no avail as against the

Davaswom. In the plaint apparently, there was an allegation that the tarwads of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, on the one hand, and of the 2nd

defendant, on the Other hand, were the Uralans of the temple. This allegation was denied in the written statement and it was stated that it was the

Karnavans of the two tarwads that had the Uraima right. No issue was framed on this question. It is contended that the Subordinate Judge

proceeded on the footing that the Uraima right was vested in the two tarwads. We do not think this argument is correct. The Subordinate Judge

does, no doubt, use the language referred to; but we cannot help thinking that the language used was loose and was intended to signify no more

than that the head of each tarwad was the Uralan. It is, of course, possible that all the members of two tarwads might be trustees of a temple. But

where the Uraima right is said to be in several tarwads, the fact usually is that it is vested in the senior member of each of the tarwads. Very serious

and anomalous consequences might follow, with respect to a temple in which there is a plurality of Uralans, who get their rights by virtue of their

being the heads of tarwads, if it should be held that all the members of each of the tarwads are trustees. As the plaintiffs did not ask for an issue to

establish their allegation, we do not think we should frame an issue at this stage. The result is that the second appeal must be dismissed with costs.