JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. We do not propose to adjourn this Appeal Suit any further to verify as to whether any of the 163 respondents are dead as the case has been pending for over 22 years. Suffice it to say that a battery of lawyers are before us representing the various branches of the family and therefore there is substantial representation for the estate. The Appeal Suit arises out of the final decree in a suit for partition of the property belonging to Kuttipuram Swaroopam comprising of Edavathu Kovilakam and Ayanchery Kovilakam. [The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is referred to as 'CPC' and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 is referred to as 'KER' in this judgment for brevity.] 2. O.S.No.1 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vadakara is a suit for partition of property wherein a preliminary decree was passed as early as on 11.8.1967. The preliminary decree was passed on consent on the basis of Ext.C1 compromise entered into between the parties followed by the impugned final decree on contest. Most of the property belonging to the Swaroopam vested with the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The dispute however survives in regard to the Kadathanad Rajas High School ['the School' for short] which is an aided school governed by the provisions of KER. The preliminary decree declared the shares of the members of the Swaroopam and also provided for the management of the School wherein the staff strength exceeds 40 in number. 3. Ext.C1 compromise stipulates that the Valiya Rajah (Sthanamdar) shall be the Manager of the School which is to be administered in accordance with KER and the wishes of the School Committee. The Committee shall comprise of the Valiya Rajah, Elaya Rajah, Head Master (Ex-officio) and one member each from Edavathu and Ayanchery Kovilakam. Ext.C1 compromise also speaks about the constitution of a Trust for the upliftment of the School though there is no mention about the constituent members. The court below has passed a final decree at the instance of defendant No.68 whereby a Scheme has been framed for the management of the School. This Appeal Suit filed by the numerous defendants concerns only the management of the School and none of the parties have sought its division by metes and bounds. 4. The court below has passed a final decree at the instance of defendant No.68 whereby a Scheme has been framed for the management of the School. This Appeal Suit filed by the numerous defendants concerns only the management of the School and none of the parties have sought its division by metes and bounds. 4. The appellants contend that there was no necessity at all for the final decree court to frame a Scheme for the management of the School as it is not warranted by the preliminary decree. It is the case of the appellants that the senior most member of the Swaroopam can function as the Manager of the School in the place of Valiya Rajah (Sthanamdar). The right to conduct the School was given by Ayanchery Kovilakam to the then Valiya Rajah under a licence deed dated 6.6.1940 and is permissive. The appellants point out that the School is not a Sthanam property available for Partition especially when the same has not been included in the Schedule of the plaint. 5. The contesting respondents include those who have taken assignment of the undivided interest of some of the members of the Swaroopam and justify the course adopted by the final decree court. The respondents are quick to point out that the alleged licence deed dated 6.6.1940 was not produced in the court below nor a plea raised. It is futile to contend that the School is not a Sthanam property in the light of Ext.C1 compromise on the basis of which the preliminary decree was passed. The respondents add that framing of a Scheme for the management of the School is not altogether alien in view of Sankarappa Gounder v. Gopalan [AIR 1973 Kerala 149 (FB)]. 6. We heard M/s.M.K.S. Menon and N.J. Johnson, Advocates on behalf of the appellants and supporting respondents as well as M/s. B. Krishnan, K. Mohanakannan, M.P. Sreekrishnan and K. Lakshminarayanan, Advocates on behalf of the contesting respondents. 7. The principal question to be considered is as to whether the School is a 'Sthanam' property to which the provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply. There is an assertion in the plaint that the plaint schedule is a Sthanam property and it should be noticed that the School was not included therein. 7. The principal question to be considered is as to whether the School is a 'Sthanam' property to which the provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply. There is an assertion in the plaint that the plaint schedule is a Sthanam property and it should be noticed that the School was not included therein. But the School is roped in Ext.C1 compromise and treated as a Sthanam property which is a permissible exercise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in the consent decree. The provisions of Section 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 obviously apply to the School when the same is a Sthanam property and the same is extracted hereunder: "7. Devolution of interest in the property of a tarwad, tavazhi, kutumba, kavaru or illom:- (1) x x x x (2) x x x x (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a Sthanamdar dies after the commencement of this Act, Sthanam property held by him shall devolve upon the members of the family to which the sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the sthanamdar as if the sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the sthanamdar among himself and all the members of his family then living, and the shares falling to the members of his family and the heirs of the sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate property. Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, the family of a sthanamdar shall include every branch of that family, whether divided or undivided, the male members of which would have been entitled by any custom or usage to succeed to the position of sthanamdar if this Act had not been passed." Thus a Sthanam property held by a Sthanamdar who dies after the commencement of the above Act devolve upon the members of the family to which the Sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the Sthanamdar. It would be as if the Sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of the Sthanamdar among himself and all the members of his family then living. The shares falling to the members of his family and the heirs of the Sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate property over which they or their assignees can exercise their right. 8. The shares falling to the members of his family and the heirs of the Sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate property over which they or their assignees can exercise their right. 8. A classic elucidation of this concept can be seen in Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Ernakulam v. Balakrishna Menon [ 1967 KLT 148 ] wherein the Full Bench held as follows:- 22. Our decision in these appeals can be summed up in the form of four questions and answers: Questions Answers 1. What is the extent of the property that passes or is deemed to pass on the death of a Sthanamdar ? The whole of the Sthanam property. 2. On whom does the Sthanam property devolve on the death of a Sthanamdar? On the members of the family to which the Sthanamdar belonged and the heirs of the Sthanamdar. 3. In which manner does the devolution take place ? As if the Sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before the death of a Sthanamdar among himself and all the members of his family then living. 4. What is the extent of the property that attracts estate duty on the death of a Sthanamdar ? The whole of the property that passes or is deemed to pass on the death of a Sthanamdar, namely, the whole of the Sthanam property. The Sthani Sri. E.K. Rama Varma Valiya Rajah died on 10.12.1963 and another Sthanamdar could not have adorned the place of Valiya Rajah after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It goes without saying that no senior member can style himself as the Rajah after the abolition of the Sthanam and stake claim for being the Manager of the School. The contention that the Sthanamdar was only permitted to run the School on consent and that the licence should be deemed to be revoked on his death is unacceptable. The licence deed dated 6.6.1940 was neither produced in the court below nor produced in this Court by recourse to Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. Moreover such contention if any stands merged in the preliminary decree whereunder the School has been explicitly treated as Sthanam property by all the parties to the suit. 9. The above reasoning should apply as regards the continuance of the School committee mentioned in Ext.C1 compromise which has to aid the administration of the School. Moreover such contention if any stands merged in the preliminary decree whereunder the School has been explicitly treated as Sthanam property by all the parties to the suit. 9. The above reasoning should apply as regards the continuance of the School committee mentioned in Ext.C1 compromise which has to aid the administration of the School. The committee comprises of the Valiya Rajah, Elaya Rajah, Head Master (Ex-officio), one member from the Edavath Kovilakam and another member from the Ayanchery Kovilakam. Such a committee cannot be constituted when there is no Sthanamdar to be called as Valiya Rajah or Elaya Rajah after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There is no Kovilakam by the disruption of the family under Section 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in order to elect a member therefrom to the committee. Added to this is the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 which makes Kovilakam (family house) insignificant in law. Suffice it to say that the constitution of a School committee in terms of the preliminary decree has become impossible by operation of law. But the parties are free to constitute a Trust to uplift the School in terms of Ext.C1 compromise although nothing is mentioned about its constituent members. 10. The preliminary decree declares the right specifying that the then Rajah would have two shares and that all other living members would get one share each totalling to 93. It transpires that many of the members have assigned their undivided fractional right and the assignees have also come on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. No prior permission under Section 6 of the Kerala Education Act is required for alienation when the School is transferred as a going concern [See: P.V. John v. Director of Public Instruction (ILR 1975 (2) Kerala 604) and Sree Ranjini Amma Raja v. Padmini Kettilamma (2016 (3) KLT 526)]. The School has vested in a Corporate Educational Agency comprising of the original members, their legal heirs and the assignees in the context. That this is a Corporate Educational Agency when the School has vested in more than one person is settled by Somanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 127 (DB)]. Chapter III Rule 2 KER provides for the constitution of Corporate Management and Chapter III Rule 3(3) KER shows as to how the proprietory body can choose the Manager. That this is a Corporate Educational Agency when the School has vested in more than one person is settled by Somanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 127 (DB)]. Chapter III Rule 2 KER provides for the constitution of Corporate Management and Chapter III Rule 3(3) KER shows as to how the proprietory body can choose the Manager. The proprietory body may finalise the bye-laws for the Management of the School and get it approved by the Director of Public Instructions as per Chapter III Rule 2 KER. The proprietory body shall thereafter elect a Manager in accordance with the approved bye-laws as per Chapter III Rule 3(3) KER who has an unfettered power to make appointments in the School. We have to necessarily adopt the provisions of the KER to give effect to the preliminary decree since Ext.C1 compromise permits such adoption. 11. The court below in passing the final decree was certainly in error in framing a Scheme for the administration of the School without reference to KER. This is especially so when the preliminary decree does not contemplate the framing of a Scheme and Ext.C1 compromise in fact insists on the adherence to KER. The suit is one for Partition and is not one under Section 92 CPC in relation to a Trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. A Scheme is essential to be framed for the working of a Trust whereas KER provides a fool proof system for the administration of a School. The court below in the Scheme framed has created the post of President, Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer etc. in a committee. Artificial voting rights have been conferred and preference has been given to the members of the family in the appointments de hors KER. Such concept is foreign to the final decree when KER governs the election of the Manager as well as the appointments to be made by him in the School. The impugned final decree is hence modified deleting the Scheme framed and directing the Management of the School to be governed by KER. It is for the proprietory body of the Corporate Educational Agency to forthwith take steps to frame a bye-law for the School and elect a Manager in accordance therewith. 12. The impugned final decree is hence modified deleting the Scheme framed and directing the Management of the School to be governed by KER. It is for the proprietory body of the Corporate Educational Agency to forthwith take steps to frame a bye-law for the School and elect a Manager in accordance therewith. 12. We would have normally left it to the Execution Court to convene a meeting of the Corporate Educational Agency in order to finalise the bye-laws as regards its management. But we cannot gloss over the fact that the suit has been pending for over half a century and the parties continue to be at logger heads. The execution proceedings may take another half a century and the School with staff and students cannot be without an approved Manager for long. We therefore appoint Mr. V. Ramkumar Nambiar, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner to supervise the meeting of the Corporate Educational Agency. Steps to finalise the bye-laws and get it approved by the Director of Public Instructions shall be taken for the Manager to be elected in accordance therewith. The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid an initial remuneration of Rs. 1 lakh which can be met by all the participants in the meeting convened of the Corporate Educational Agency. The Appeal Suit is allowed in part. No costs.