Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is by the second defendant in a suit for recovery of property with arrears of pattom filed on behalf of the Manjummel Devaswom by the representatives of the Oorallar tarwads. The grounds urged in appeal are that the suit is not maintainable and that the appellant is entitled to enhanced value of improvements. 2. With regard to the maintainability, it is contended that the lower courts were wrong in rejecting the objections raised on the ground that the second plaintiff was not entitled to represent his Oorallor tarwad being only a junior member and on account of the non-impleading of the Sirkar on the demise of the 4th plaintiff when the rights of his family escheated to the Sirkar. With regard to the first point the second plaintiff is one of the signatories to the plaint and had come forward as the rightful representative of his family. There is no evidence to prove the contrary and the concurrent findings of the lower courts on that point are not liable to be interfered with. As regards the second point, the fact that the 4th plaintiff was the last surviving member of his tarwad is not questioned. What is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs is that on his demise the remaining plaintiffs were competent to continue the proceedings and rights vested in the Sirkar only after a proper enquiry and orders to the effect that the rights of the family had escheated to the Sirkar. Here there is no evidence of any final order of escheat having been passed by the Government. Chakkrapani Warrier v. Kandan (17 TLR Appendix 38) is cited on behalf of the appellant to show that when all the Oorallers were not on the array of parties the suit was vitiated. That decision deals only with the question of the rightful parties at the initiation of the suit. It does not go into the point as to whether when all parties were there when the suit was filed, on the demise of one the others were competent to continue the proceedings. The observations there in the last paragraph are only to the following effect: "In Savitri Antharjan v. Raman Nambudri (ILR XXIV Mad. It does not go into the point as to whether when all parties were there when the suit was filed, on the demise of one the others were competent to continue the proceedings. The observations there in the last paragraph are only to the following effect: "In Savitri Antharjan v. Raman Nambudri (ILR XXIV Mad. Page 296), the Madras High Court have gone the length of holding that it is only when one perversely declines to co-operate with the other, after being wanted to do so, and when it is for the benefit of the institution that proceedings should be taken, that one Oorallen can sue impleading the other as defendant. Without, however, going so far and without derogating from the powers of management vested in a hereditary Manuzhuyam, we are of opinion that as the other Ooralers are joint trustees of the devaswom with the plaintiff, they are necessary parties to the suit and that their appearance in the record as plaintiffs or defendants is necessary both for the protection of the Devaswom interests as well for that of the persons against whom the suit is brought". Here all the Oorallers were on record when the suit was filed. Under such circumstances when one of the Oorallers passed away during the pendency of the same the others had a right to continue the proceedings, the suit being on behalf of the Devaswom as such. This position is supported by Sankaran Nair v. Narayana Menon (25 Cochin 376) cited on behalf of the plaintiffs where it was held that when there was escheat the remaining Ooralers themselves were entitled to carry on all acts of management including the filing of a suit. There at page 377 it is observed as follows: "About 10 years ago, the illom of one of the Ooralans became extinct and the affairs of the temple were managed by the two remaining Ooralans. They executed a melpanayam, Ext. A in favour of the plaintiff in 1104 authorising the plaintiff to redeem the prior mortgages and collect michavaram from the defendant. It is this melpanayam, Ext. They executed a melpanayam, Ext. A in favour of the plaintiff in 1104 authorising the plaintiff to redeem the prior mortgages and collect michavaram from the defendant. It is this melpanayam, Ext. A, granted by the 2 Ooralans in favour of the plaintiff that is said to confer no rights on the plaintiff to institute this suit; for the reason that they have not obtained the rights of the escheated illom which according to the contention of the defendant must lapse to the Sirkar, and the Sirkar not having been consulted in the matter of granting the melpanayam or taken any part in the management of the temple, may be on account of ignorance of the escheat, the two surviving Ooralans have no power to grant the melpanayam in question. There is no warrant for any of these assumptions in the absence of any instrument of trust showing the terms by which the trust is to be carried out. The surviving trustees, therefore, will have authority to continue the trust and their acts of management cannot be questioned". So it is clear in the present case that the suit is not vitiated on the ground of omission to bring in Sirkar as a party. Hence the objection to maintainability of the suit cannot stand. 3. Then there is the claim regarding value of improvements. The additional value claimed is Rs. 483-1-6 out of which Rs. 465-1-6 is claimed as value of cost of levelling and Rs. 18 as the value of three non-bearing cocoanut trees. The property consists of paddy fields. There is no reliable evidence regarding levelling which can be considered as improvement to be valued. The commissioner's report is based upon the statement of the defendant. There is no ground to interfere with the finding of the lower courts that no value can be awarded on that basis. Coming to the value of the three trees the lower appellate court has rejected it on the ground that they can be transplanted being recent plantations. I do not think it is proper to refuse the value on such a ground. Hence it is held that the appellant is entitled to additional value of Rs.18 as per the commissioner's report for those three trees. 4. In the result, the value awarded for improvements is enhanced by Rs.18. This is the only relief the appellant is entitled to here. Hence it is held that the appellant is entitled to additional value of Rs.18 as per the commissioner's report for those three trees. 4. In the result, the value awarded for improvements is enhanced by Rs.18. This is the only relief the appellant is entitled to here. In view of his limited success he will pay the costs of the contesting respondents. The appeal is allowed to the said extent.