Supreme Court Clarifies Marumakkathayam Law on Property Partition: Ramachandran vs. Vijayan (22 November 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 885

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

What happens to property when a family governed by Marumakkathayam law undergoes partition? Does the property received by a female member remain her separate property, or does it become part of her tharwad, thus affecting her descendants? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this intricate question in the case of Ramachandran & Ors. vs. Vijayan & Ors., providing much-needed clarity on the matter. This judgment delves into the core principles of Marumakkathayam law, a system of matrilineal inheritance prevalent in certain parts of South India.

The core issue revolves around the nature of property obtained by a female and her children after a partition within a Marumakkathayam family. The Court had to determine whether such property should be considered the separate property of the female or whether it should be treated as tharwad property, which would then be subject to the rights of her descendants. The bench comprised Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The dispute centers on the property of Parukutty Amma, who had four children: Karunakara Menon, Neelakanta Menon, Narayani Amma, and Amukutty Amma. Narayani Amma had four children, including Padmavathi Amma. The plaintiffs in this case are Padmavathi Amma’s husband and children, who sought a partition of the family property. The defendants include the other children and grandchildren of Parukutty Amma, except Padmavathi Amma. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the properties belonging to Andipillil Tharwad. The dispute specifically concerns two sets of properties: Item No. 1 and Item No. 2.

Item No. 1 was originally gifted to 11 members of the tharwad. A partition suit was filed by one of the donees, Ayyappa Menon, which led to a compromise and a partition deed in 1950, dividing the property among nine donees, as two had passed away. The property was allotted to five branches. Item No. 2 originally belonged to Sankar Padmanabhan. After his demise, half of the property devolved on his wife, Parukutty Amma, and their children, while the other half went to his mother, Parvathy Amma. Parvathy Amma later transferred her interest to Parukutty Amma and her children through a mortgage deed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court framed eleven issues, finding that both Item No. 1 and Item No. 2 were tharwad properties. It held that the partition deed for Item No. 1 was executed by a natural group of Marumakkathayees, indicating that the property was tharwad property. For Item No. 2, the Trial Court concluded that the property belonged to the thavazhi of Parukutty Amma, as it was transferred to her and her children through a mortgage deed. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree, allotting one share each to defendants 1-7 and plaintiffs 2-8, and one share to defendants 9-14 collectively.

The High Court of Kerala upheld the Trial Court’s decision. It held that the share allotted to a female on partition retains the tharwad characteristic. The High Court also observed that the mortgage deed for Item No. 2 was in favor of Parukutty Amma and her minor children, forming a natural group, and thus the property would enure to all members of her thavazhi. The High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s decree.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by Marumakkathayam law, a system of matrilineal inheritance where descent is traced through the female line. Key concepts include:

• Tharwad: A Marumakkathayam joint family consisting of a female ancestor and her descendants in the female line.
• Thavazhi: A branch of a tharwad, consisting of a female ancestor and her descendants in the female line.
• Karanavan: The manager of a joint family property, typically the oldest male member.

The Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, defines ‘karanavan’ as the oldest male member of a tarwad or tavazhi, or in the absence of a male member, the oldest female member. The Court also considered Section 38 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932, and its subsequent amendment in 1958, which pertains to the right of a member of a tarwad or tavazhi to claim partition.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Original Defendants) Arguments:

• The properties are not thavazhi property. Item No. 1 is co-owned property, and Item No. 2 is puthravakasam property (property inherited from the father).
• The minority view in Mary Cheriyan & Anr. v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi & Anr. should be considered correct.
• Parvathy Amma could only transfer her share of Item No. 2, not the entire property.

Respondents’ (Original Plaintiffs) Arguments:

• A new tharwad is formed when a female member and her children jointly receive properties by gift.
• When a share was allotted to the natural thavazhi in the partition deed dated 01.11.1950, it acquired the characteristics of tharwad property.
• Parvathy Amma became the sole owner of Item No. 2 after her son’s death and could validly transfer her share to Parukutty Amma and her children.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the property obtained by a female and her children after partition would be considered their separate property or would it belong to her tharwad?
2. Whether, in the present facts, Parvathy Amma had the legal right to transfer the entire property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by way of a mortgage deed, or was her right only limited to one-sixth of the property?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases and Legal Provisions Considered:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court relied on Achuthan Nair v. Chinnamu Amma to explain the concepts of tharwad, thavazhi, and karanavan.

✓ The Court analyzed the majority and minority opinions in Mary Cheriyan & Anr. v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi & Anr. [1967 SCC OnLine Ker 68], ultimately agreeing with the minority view that partition alters the nature of property from joint to separate. However, the court held that this view would apply prospectively.

✓ The Court considered the definitions of thavazhi and karanavan under the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, the Travancore Nayar Regulation, II of 1100, and the Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113.

✓ The Court noted the amendment to Section 38 of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, which removed the provision that the share obtained by a thavazhi shall be taken with the incidents of tharwad property.

The Court reasoned that partition is an act that changes the nature of property from joint to individual ownership. It emphasized that a single female cannot constitute a thavazhi, as a thavazhi requires a group of persons, including a female and her descendants in the female line. The Court held that the minority view in Mary Cheriyan correctly understood the position of law, but clarified that the pronouncement of law in this judgment shall apply prospectively.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal interpretation of partition and the concept of thavazhi under Marumakkathayam law. The Court emphasized that partition alters the nature of property from joint to individual ownership. The Court also focused on the definition of thavazhi, concluding that a single female cannot constitute a thavazhi. The amendment to Section 38 of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, also played a crucial role in the Court’s reasoning.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the evidence that Parukutty Amma and her descendants received the scheduled properties under Item No. 1 collectively and that Parvathy Amma transferred Item No. 2 to Parukutty Amma and her children through a mortgage deed.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations (70%) with a significant emphasis on the interpretation of the law and the definition of key terms. The factual aspects of the case (30%) were also considered to apply the legal principles.

Key Takeaways

✓ Property obtained by a female after partition is considered her separate property, not tharwad property.

✓ A single female cannot constitute a thavazhi under Marumakkathayam law.

✓ The amendment to Section 38 of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, changed the legal position regarding the nature of property obtained after partition.

✓ The judgment clarifies the legal position for future cases, but does not disturb past transactions.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The Trial Court was directed to proceed further as per law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a single female who receives property upon partition does not hold it as tharwad property, but as her separate property. This is a change from the previous legal position, which was based on the majority view in Mary Cheriyan, which held that property obtained by a female after partition retains its character as tharwad property. The Supreme Court clarified that this position is incorrect and that the minority view in Mary Cheriyan is the correct interpretation of law. However, the court has given prospective effect to the judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramachandran vs. Vijayan clarifies the legal position regarding the nature of property obtained by a female after partition under Marumakkathayam law. The Court held that such property is considered her separate property and not tharwad property. The Court also clarified that a single female cannot constitute a thavazhi. While the Court agreed with the minority view in Mary Cheriyan, this position will apply prospectively. The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court.