http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: R. BALAKRISHNA WARRIER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SANTHA VARASSIAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/10/1996

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The plaintiff  in O.S.  No.  178  of  1958,  Additional Munsiff Court,  Ernakulam --  appellant in  S.A. No.  669 of 1976 --  is the  appellant in  this  appeal.  The  appellant belongs to  Edappally Padinjare  Warriam. His main prayer in the suit  was to  declare that  the  appellant’s  family  is entitled to  do Kazhakam  services in the two temples as the family has hereditary rights in that regard. The trial court held that  the plaintiff  or his family had no Karaima right (hereditary right)  in the  temples as claimed. It is stated in the appeal memorandum that both the courts held thus:-      "(i)....the plaintiff’s  family has      been performing  the  Kazhakam  (2)      the  plaintiff’s  family  had  been      given Mala Virthy by the swaroopam,      (3) that the plaintiff’s family has      been performing the Kazhakam in the      two temples  from  time  immemorial      for  which   they  had  been  given      viruthy tenure.      But  after   recording  all   these      findings  concurrently  the  courts      also  held   that  the  plaintiff’s      family has  no hereditary right for      the  performance  of  Kazhakam  and      that the  plaintiff could  be hired      and fired  at the sweet will by the      defendant                    No.1." 2.   The appellant  filed S.A. bio. 669 of 1976 and assailed the judgments  and decrees  of the courts below. The learned single Judge  of the  High Court,  in  paragraph  2  of  the judgment, observed thus:-      "2.   So  far as the main relief of      granting  a  declaration  that  the      plaintiff’s  tarward  has  got  the      right to do kazhakam service in the      two   temples    in   question   is      concerned, it  appears to  me  that      that relief  is now  irrelevant  in      view  of  the  Kerala  Joint  Hindu

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Family System (Abolition) Act 1975,      Acc 30  of 1976. That Act abolishes      the joint tenancy of tarward and it      can  no   more.  to  be  said  that      marumakkathayam tarward  with joint      tenancy as  its feature  exists any      move. In  that view  no declaration      can  be  given  in  favour  of  the      tarward  as   sought  for   by  the      plaintiff. That is the basic relief      sought for,  the other  reliefs are      based on that relief."      (emphasis supplied)      However, the  court granted  a decree  for recovery  of Rs.100/- from  the first defendant and a slight modification was thus  made. The  sum of Rs.100/- was paid in lieu of the notice, for the termination of the service of the appellant. 3.   We heard  counsel. The  appellant has  not  sought  any amendment of  the plaint either in the High Court or in this Court. The  main prayer is for grant of declaration that the appellant’s  tarwad   (family)  has  the  right  to  perform Kazhakam services  in the  two temples.  The High  Court was right in  holding  that  the  Kerala  Act  30  of  1976  has abolished the  joint family  system. The  tarwad has  become extinct. No  declaration can  be given  in favour  of a non- existing entity.  On this  aspect, We  concur with  the High Court and dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs. However, as  to whether the Karaima right (or the hereditary right ) will devolve on the members of the erstwhile tarward as tenants in common does not arise for consideration in the present appeal. The said issue is left open