Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court

24 November 2024 11:42 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in which clarifying key principles under the Marumakkathayam customary law. In affirming the Kerala High Court's decision, the Court ruled on the nature of property inheritance under the matrilineal system, resolving significant legal questions regarding the rights of tharwad and thavazhi members.

The case originated from a partition suit involving the Andipillil Tharwad’s properties in Kerala. The plaintiffs, descendants of Parukutty Amma, claimed their right to partition of two disputed property items, asserting their classification as tharwad property under Marumakkathayam law. The defendants challenged this, contending that the properties were co-owned or held individually and not as tharwad property.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, classifying the properties as tharwad property and granting partition. The Kerala High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, leading the defendants to appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Marumakkathayam system, predominant in Kerala, follows matrilineal succession, emphasizing descent through the female line. As the Supreme Court explained:

“Unlike the Mitakshara system, which is founded on agnatic relationships, the Marumakkathayam system is matriarchal, with joint families (tharwad) consisting of a female ancestor, her children, and their descendants in the female line.”

The Court further clarified the role of the karanavan, the oldest male member managing the tharwad’s property, noting that this role does not confer any special proprietary rights.

A pivotal question before the Court was whether property obtained by a female through partition retains its character as tharwad property or becomes her separate property. Justice Sanjay Karol observed:

“Partition is an act by which the nature of the property is changed, reflecting an alteration in ownership… The joint nature of the property is destroyed, and it ceases to be joint property post-partition.”

The Court endorsed the minority view from the Kerala High Court’s earlier Full Bench decision in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai, which held that a female inheriting property individually post-partition acquires it as her own. Justice Karol emphasized:

“A single female cannot constitute a thavazhi. For a property to retain its tharwad character post-partition, it must be inherited by a group, not an individual.”

The Supreme Court differentiated the facts of this case from the theoretical debates. For item No. 1, the Court found that the property was inherited collectively by a thavazhi, including Parukutty Amma and her children, thus retaining its tharwad character. Similarly, for item No. 2, the Court upheld findings that the property, acquired by mortgage deed and held jointly, belonged to the thavazhi of Parukutty Amma.

“The property acquired by the collective group (branch 5) was held as tharwad property, protecting the rights of all members, including future generations.”

The Court reaffirmed the principle that it would not interfere with concurrent factual findings by lower courts unless they were perverse or caused undue hardship. Justice Karol noted:

“Interference in concurrent findings is justified only if they are divorced from evidence, arbitrary, or contrary to law… No such circumstances arise here.”

 

Implications and Prospective Application of the Ruling

While the Supreme Court upheld the minority view as the correct interpretation of law, it applied this prospectively. Justice Karol clarified:

“The pronouncement of law in this judgment shall apply only henceforth. Any transaction concluded or ongoing will not be disturbed.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The properties were classified as tharwad property, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the final decree as per law.

Date of Decision: November 22, 2024

Latest Legal News