Judgment : 1. Revision petitioners are defendants 1 and 5 in a suit pending before the Sub Court, Pala. 2. Suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs', for a declaration that plaint schedule properties belong to a private trust of religious and charitable nature constituted for beneficial interests of the members of a tarwad and for removal of the trustee - the 1st defendant, for framing a scheme for the administration of the trust and other incidental reliefs. Competency of the plaintiffs to institute the suit questioned by the defendants, and on directions issued by this Court on orders passed in two revisions, separately, filed against interim orders passed in the suit, to consider as a preliminary issue whether plaintiffs are members of the tarwad and their competency to file the suit, that issue was considered preliminarily by the learned Sub Judge. Evidence was recorded for consideration of that issue, in which plaintiffs examined three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited Exts.A1 to A3. No evidence was let in by the contesting defendants. On the materials placed, learned Sub Judge holding that plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4, who are descendants of some members of the marumakkathayam tarwad, even after partition of the properties of such tarwad where some properties are left in common constituting a trust for beneficial interests of the members of tarwad, continue to be tenants in common of such properties, and as such, they have competency to institute the suit for the reliefs claimed. That order is challenged by two among the defendants filing this revision. 3. Pending revision, 1st and 2nd respondents, passed away and legal heir of the 1st respondent have been brought on record as additional 19th respondent and those of 2nd respondent, as additional respondents 12 to 15. 4. Some of the facts involved in the case are not disputed by both sides. An ancient marumakkathayam Nair tarwad, namely, Pandiyankal in Thalappalam Muri, which had five sakhas, viz., Pandiyankal, Puthuvayil, Njalliath, Kuruthanad (Erumathanam) and Akkal, got disrupted by Ext.A1 partition deed dated 28.01.1104 (ME) effecting a division of its properties in favour of the sakhas. 4. Some of the facts involved in the case are not disputed by both sides. An ancient marumakkathayam Nair tarwad, namely, Pandiyankal in Thalappalam Muri, which had five sakhas, viz., Pandiyankal, Puthuvayil, Njalliath, Kuruthanad (Erumathanam) and Akkal, got disrupted by Ext.A1 partition deed dated 28.01.1104 (ME) effecting a division of its properties in favour of the sakhas. 'A' schedule properties in Ext.A1 deed except some properties included therein situate in Poonjar Village, which, then, was under litigation, were set apart for the beneficial interests of the family styling it as ‘kudumbayoga’ to perform religious ceremonies in places of worship belonging to tarwad and such other functions of spiritual nature. Properties described in 'A' schedule, except those situated in Poonjar Village, have to be retained as trust properties and never to be partitioned or alienated was the covenant in Ext.A1 partition deed. Subsequently in respect of properties partitioned under sakha wise, in course of time, further partition deeds were executed by members of those sakhas. Ext.A2 deed is one such partition deed executed by the wife and children of 5th executant in Ext.A1 partition deed, after his death, in respect of his properties which he got under a subsequent partition deed effected among members of his sakha. The members of the tarwad later executed another partition deed, Ext.A3 dated 18.07.1954, in which, properties of tarwad in Poonjar Village which were left undivided in Ext.A1 partition deed, was divided. In that partition deed, some additional provisions were made for management of the trust constituted under Ext.A1 partition deed providing among others formation of a committee, performance of certain religious matters and also for removal of committee in case of mismanagement, and appointment of another committee in its place. Committee to be formed for management of the trust has to consist of five members, one each from the five sakhas of tarwad. 5. So far as the constitution of trust to which some properties of tarwad had been set apart under Ext.A1 partition deed and also provisions made later under Ext.A2 partition deed when there was a division of properties of tarwad in Poonjar village there is no dispute between parties. 5. So far as the constitution of trust to which some properties of tarwad had been set apart under Ext.A1 partition deed and also provisions made later under Ext.A2 partition deed when there was a division of properties of tarwad in Poonjar village there is no dispute between parties. 1st defendant, Secretary of the trust, is mismanaging its affairs and he has committed breach of trust, is the crux of the case of plaintiffs to institute the suit for the reliefs claimed as aforesaid alleging that they are members of tarwad having a beneficial interest over the trust entitling them to seek such reliefs. In the plaint, the plaintiffs, four in number, have alleged that they hail from the branches of tarwad. Claim set up to assert that they are members of the branches of tarwad reads thus: The 1st plaintiff P.S.Sankara Narayanan Nair is born in Puthuvayil branch, the 2nd plaintiff P.G. Ayyappan Pillai is born in Pandiyankal branch, 3rd plaintiff K.P. Prabhakaran Nair is born in Pandiyankal branch, Lakshmi Amma, 4th plaintiff Is born In Puthuvayil branch (paragraph 5 of the plaint). None of them are members of the aforesaid branches of tarwad, and as such, they cannot claim any beneficial interest over the trust to seek the reliefs set up in the suit, is the contention of defendants to assail the competency of plaintiffs to sue and seek the reliefs in the suit in respect of the trust. So the pivotal question is whether these plaintiffs are members of the branches of the tarwad as claimed by them enabling them to sue for the reliefs claimed in respect of the trust constituted for the beneficial interest of its members. 6. Issue raised in the suit on the disputed question referred to above was directed to be considered preliminarily by the trial Court. After recording evidence on that issue, the order under challenge has been passed by the learned Sub Judge upholding the competency of plaintiffs to sue and seek reliefs in respect of the trust. 6. Issue raised in the suit on the disputed question referred to above was directed to be considered preliminarily by the trial Court. After recording evidence on that issue, the order under challenge has been passed by the learned Sub Judge upholding the competency of plaintiffs to sue and seek reliefs in respect of the trust. Learned Sub Judge after taking note that at least three among the plaintiffs are descendants of some of the male members of tarwad, who were among the executants of Ext.A1 partition deed, has observed that the property left in common, undivided in 'A' schedule in that deed for ‘kudumbayoga’ can be treated as property left in common, and members of such tarwad can be treated as ‘tenants in common’ in respect of such property. Plaintiffs, who are the ‘descendants’ of a marumakkathayam tarwad, according to the learned Sub Judge, have every right for participation in the administration of the trust. However, a contradictory finding is made in the latter part of the order by the learned Sub Judge that the property undivided and set apart for ‘kudumbayoga’ continued as tarwad properties even after partition under Exts.A1 and A2 deeds. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for revision petitioners pointing out the conflicting findings entered by the learned Sub Judge contended that the real question to be resolved whether descendants of male members of tarwad after division and disruption of that tarwad can claim to be members of tarwad under Marumakkathayam Law was not correctly and properly examined in the case, and it has given rise to an erroneous order by learned Sub Judge with conflicting views referred to. Adverting to the evidence of 1st plaintiff, examined as PW1, it is contended by the counsel that at least in respect of the first three plaintiffs it is unequivocally admitted that their maternal line of descendants is not from Pandiyankal tarwad and they have connection with the tarwad only on the paternal line. Predecessors of plaintiffs on paternal line were members of the tarwad would not enable the plaintiffs to treat them as descendants of the tarwad and, thus, to sue for reliefs in respect of trust as if they have some interests over such trust, according to the counsel. 8. Predecessors of plaintiffs on paternal line were members of the tarwad would not enable the plaintiffs to treat them as descendants of the tarwad and, thus, to sue for reliefs in respect of trust as if they have some interests over such trust, according to the counsel. 8. This Court in the order dated 17th April, 1997 in C.R.P.No.1494 of 1996, which arose from an interim order passed in the suit, has specifically directed the court below to consider whether the plaintiffs are members of tarwad or descendants of tarwad, to determine their competency to maintain the suit, in respect of the property of tarwad. In another revision C.R.P.No.804 of 1996, which was pending when the earlier revision was disposed of, later, by order dated 16th July, 1997 directed the trial court to consider the issue over the competency of plaintiffs to institute suit as members of tarwad. Without adverting to that question strangely enough the learned Sub Judge has misdirected his enquiry as to what would be the right of successors of members of tarwad, after its division, when some properties of tarwad remained undivided when partition took place. Analysing that question, entering conflicting findings thereof, learned Sub Judge has held that plaintiffs who are successors of some members of the tarwad have competency to sue for the reliefs claimed in respect of the trust. Normally in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, where a finding or order of inferior court is shown to be palpably suffering from jurisdictional error or infirmity critical appreciation of evidence tendered is not resorted to form a correct view on the question, but, having regard that a pure question of law arises for determination, which, of course, may require looking into the evidence tendered to examine the competency of plaintiffs to sue, and also that the suit has been pending from 1994 onwards, I find, the revision has to be disposed of on its merits after looking into the materials produced. 9. In considering the question of competency of plaintiffs to seek reliefs in respect of the trust constituted for the beneficial interest of members of tarwad, are they members of the tarwad is the question to be answered. A tarwad essentially denotes a marumakkathayam joint family.It consists of a female ancestor and her children and successors however remote, but, only in the female line. A tarwad essentially denotes a marumakkathayam joint family.It consists of a female ancestor and her children and successors however remote, but, only in the female line. Male descendants of the female ancestor are members of the tarwad, but not their children. A person becomes a member of tarwad only through his mother and in fact membership arises only on birth in the family in the female line. Even after a marriage a female member of a tarwad does not change her family, and she continues to be a member of her tarwad. In Malabar and Aliyasandana Law by P. R. Sundara Aiyar under Chapter II titled as ‘Partition and Re-union’ it has been stated thus:- "The joint family in a Marumakkathayam Nayar tarwad consists of a mother and her male and female children, and the children of those female children, and so on. The issue of the male children do not belong to their tarwad but to the tarwad of their consorts." In Marumakkathayam and Allied Systems of Law in the Kerala State by K. Sreedhara Variar in Chapter II ‘Tarwad and its Management’ stating what constitutes a tarwad it has been held thus: "A person belongs to the tarwad of his or her mother only and tarwad membership arises by birth in the family." Plaintiffs have claimed that they are born in one or other branches of the tarwad. First and fourth plaintiffs claim birth in Puthuvayil branch, and second and third plaintiffs in Pandiyangal branch. No more particulars are stated in the plaint to trace their female line of descendants enabling them to claim as members of above branches. First plaintiff examined as PW1 has candidly admitted during his examination that his mother belongs to a different family, namely, Peroorkunnel. His father belonged to Puthuvayil branch is his evidence. His father is a member of Puthuvayil branch would not enable him to be a member of Puthuvayil branch since in marumakkathayam joint family system his status as a member of tarwad is only in the female line. Similar is the case of second plaintiff as shown by evidence of the above witness. Mother of second plaintiff hailed from a different family known as Puthiyath and she was married to a person, father of second plaintiff, in Pandiyangal branch, is the basis to claim that second plaintiff is a member of that branch. Similar is the case of second plaintiff as shown by evidence of the above witness. Mother of second plaintiff hailed from a different family known as Puthiyath and she was married to a person, father of second plaintiff, in Pandiyangal branch, is the basis to claim that second plaintiff is a member of that branch. In the case of third plaintiff the evidence of above witness would show that both his parents hail from different families not connected with any of the branches of Pandiyangal tarwad. Mother of third plaintiff is from Peroorkunnel family and his father from Kochupurakal family. So far as the fourth plaintiff, Lekshmi Amma, the above witness(PW1) has admitted that her ‘mother does’ not belong to Pandiyangal tarwad, but, only her father was a member of Puthuvayil shaka of tarwad. He has also unequivocally admitted thus:— 10. Learned counsel for revision petitioners has relied on some authorities over the law applicable to trust when there is no transfer of property in favour of Trust as such, but, only of setting apart some properties of a family for carrying out certain philanthropic or religious purpose to point out who alone could be treated as persons interested in such Trust enabling them to sue for reliefs relating to the administration or management of such Trust. Such questions in the given facts, where plaintiffs are shown to be not members of tarwad, do not call for scrutiny. Learned senior counsel has adverted to the above aspects since the learned Sub Judge under his order has proceeded on the basis that in respect of properties of tarwad left in common under Ext.A1 partition deed for Kudumbayoga a trust for beneficial interest of members of the tharwad all descendants of tarwad continue to be tenants in common over such properties. Where plaintiffs in the suit unequivocally admit constitution of a trust in respect of properties left for 'Kudumbayoga' and they claimed status of members of tharwad as descendants in one or other of its branches, with no case that they are tenants in common of properties left undivided in tharwad, for whatever the purpose that be, I find no dilation over the constitution of trust and incidental matters connected thereto is called for. Enquiry proceeded in those lines and conclusion formed by the learned Sub Judge that plaintiffs are 'tenants in common' of the properties left for Kudumbayoga on partition of tarwad properties when no such case was canvassed by them, and, in fact conflicting with their case claiming as members of tarwad beneficial interest in the trust constituting such properties, is totally erroneous and palpably wrong. The only question to be looked into on the pleadings and evidence let in the case to determine the maintainability of the suit, was whether plaintiffs are members of tarwad as being the descendants in the female line on any of its branches after disruption of tarwad under Ext.A1 partition deed to show their competency to seek reliefs in respect of the Trust constituted over some properties of tarwad for the beneficial interest of its members. Where the plaintiffs are demonstrably shown to be not descendants in the female line from any of the branches of Pandiyangal tarwad and that they have relation or connection with that tharwad only in the paternal line, they are not members of tarwad. They cannot claim beneficial interest in the Trust as members of tarwad. When that be so, the suit filed by plaintiffs to seek reliefs in respect of the trust, whatever be the allegations raised over its mismanagement, cannot be entertained. Plaintiffs are incompetent to institute the suit in respect of the trust of the tarwad and their suit for the reliefs canvassed is not maintainable. 11. Orders passed by the court below is set aside. Suit shall stand dismissed as not maintainable and struck off from the file of the court. Revision is allowed.