Case Name: Ramachandran & Ors. vs. Vijayan & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2161 of 2012
Date of Judgment: November 22, 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The dispute is regarding some properties vested in Marumakkathayam customary law amongst the members of the Andipillil Tharwad. The properties are Item No. 1 and Item No. 2. They were claimed as tharwad property by the plaintiffs who were descendants of Parukutty Amma. The plaintiffs prayed for partition and separate possession of these properties.
The appellants, who are former defendants, opposed the suit, giving their contention that properties were not tharwad properties but individually owned or co-owned properties. The Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs with a characterization of the nature of the properties as tharwad, which characterization was upheld by the High Court. The defendants appeal to the Supreme Court wherein characterization of the properties and the concurrent findings of both courts are assailed.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
- Whether properties acquired by a woman and her children after partition form part of tharwad or are held as separate properties.
- Whether Parvathy Amma was lawfully entitled to transfer the entire property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren under a mortgage deed.
- Whether the properties in dispute are to be classified as tharwad properties or individual properties.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Marumakkathayam Law
Governing matrilineal succession in certain Hindu communities.
- Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932
Section 3(j)(i) – Definition of thavazhi.
Section 38 (pre and post-1958 amendment) – Rights over property during partition.
- Travancore Nayar Regulation, II of 1100
Regarding thavazhi inheritance.
- The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Partition and inheritance principles.
- Article 136 of the Constitution of India
Power of the Supreme Court to hear appeals.
ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE:
Appellant:
They contended that the properties involved were not tharwad properties. They also submitted that Item no. 1 was co-owned property and not tharwad property since it was partitioned among natural Marumakkathayee groups. Item No.2 was putravakasam property inherited by Padmanabhan whose rights could not be transferred in its entirety by his mother, Parvathy Amma to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren. In the result, the majority judgment in Mary Cheriyan vs. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi was wrong and shall be reversed and overruled by the correct view of the minority judgment that the properties acquired in partition lose their tharwad character and become individual property.
Respondent:
The respondents argued that Both the properties in dispute were the tharwads inherited and maintained jointly by members of the Andipillil Tharavad.The properties were acquired and managed by members of the thavazhi, which confirms their tharwad nature, as reflected in the mortgage and partition deeds.The majority judgment in the case of Mary Cheriyan correctly upheld the principle that properties acquired in partition retain their tharwad character, especially when jointly inherited by thavazhi members.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court elaborately scrutinized Marumakkathayam law and its interpretation over the disputed properties. In respect of Item No. 1, it noted that the properties had been inherited and dealt with as tharwad property by the descendants of Parukutty Amma, in which it was buttressed by the partition deeds and the appointment of a karanavan (family head).
Item No. 2- High Court held that the properties belonged to the thavazhi of Parukutty Amma and it was rightly transferred by the mother-in-law, Parvathy Amma. The appeals of appellants that the said properties belonged to different owners or copartners were dismissed by the Court as no material evidence existed to refute the tharwad nature of the properties. In determining the broader legal issue of whether the tharwad character of properties acquired in partition is retained, the Court aligned itself with the minority view of Mary Cheriyan. The court held that only properties partitioned to a single female member do not automatically retain their tharwad nature unless shared by her thavazhi. In a case wherein the disputed properties were inherited and held by a group (thavazhi), the Court held out with the consensus of courts below.
JUDGEMENT:
The appeal was dismissed. The judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court were affirmed. It further held that the preliminary decree classifying the properties as tharwad properties stood confirmed and directed the Trial Court to proceed further as per law. No grounds were found for interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and these were based on sound reasoning and evidence. No costs were awarded in the matter.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court held the disputed properties to be rightly identified as tharwad properties under the Marumakkathayam law. It has been made clear that the properties inherited or acquired collectively by a thavazhi retain their tharwad character, ensuring that future generations within the group have a rightful claim. The Court resolved the broader legal question regarding the nature of properties obtained in partition that has been favourably discharged today by the minority opinion in Mary Cheriyan for future application. It was held that such properties acquired by a single female in a partition are her separate property unless shared with her thavazhi. But since the disputed properties are collectively inherited and managed, their character as tharwad remains unaffected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY RICHA PANDEY
