Marumakkathayam law| Single Female At Time Of Partition Continues To Hold The Property As Her Own Even If She Has Children In Future: SC
|The Supreme Court held that under the Marumakkathayam Personal Law, if at the time of partition the female is single, she continues to hold the property as her own, even if she has children in the future.
The Court overruled the 1967 Kerala High Court Full Bench judgment in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi to this extent and held that in order for a thavazhi to be formed, there has to be at least one female and her successive generation, either male or female, in the generation immediately succeeding and thereafter progeny of the female line.
The Court however clarified that the pronouncement of law in this judgment shall apply prospectively.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol pointed out, “The common thread between the three definitions is that all of them refer to a group of persons, which includes the main female and her future generations. This necessarily implies that in order for a thavazhi to be formed, there has to be at least one female and her successive generation, either male or female, in the generation immediately succeeding and thereafter progeny of the female line.”
AOR A. Raghunath represented the Appellants, while AOR M. P. Vinod appeared for the Respondents.
The Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 under Section 3(j)(i) defines thavazhi (in context of females) as a group of persons consisting of that female, her children and all her descendants in the female line.
The Supreme Court clarified that under Mitakshara law, if a member continued to be joint with his own male issue then the share allotted to him retained the characteristic of coparcenary property. However, in Marumakkathayam law, as per the original defendants the position of law has been incorrectly settled.
The Majority opinion in Mary Cheriyan (supra) was discussed wherein it was held that a property obtained by a female under Marumakkathayam Law towards her share under an outright partition in her tharwad continues to retain its character as tharwad property. It was propounded that on partition, a tharwad breaks up into separate units with each unit a tharwad by itself, called a thavazhi.
In Mary Cheriyan (supra), the Majority view emphasised that unlike Mitakshara law, which has a religious flair, Marumakkathayam law is read with a secular tone and thereby every member of a tharwad how low-so-ever in degree gets a right by birth, which extends even to the right by birth in property taken on partition.
The minority view in Mary Cheriyan (supra) differed with the interpretation of the majority opinion and by dissenting, held that “the statute enacted does not lay down or declare any general principle for the nature of property remaining a tharwad after the partition.”
The Supreme Court pointed out that “the majority, as is evident from the above, holds that a female who is single at the time of partition holds the property received in partition as tharwad by way of her being a single member thavazhi, thereby securing the right of persons who may become a member thereof either by way of adoption or birth in future. Per contra, the minority holds that if at the time of partition the female is single, she continues to hold the property as her own, even if she has children in the future. This is for the reason that partition, by its very essence, alters the nature of the property from, at one point being jointly held property or tharwad to a property held solely by her.”
The Court also clarified that the majority faltered in their understanding that one single female was sufficient to form a thavazhi. “For the reason above discussed and another which we shall come to in the following paragraphs, we are unable to agree with this view,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court affirmed the minority view and observed, “Per contra, the minority holds that if at the time of partition the female is single, she continues to hold the property as her own, even if she has children in the future. This is for the reason that partition, by its very essence, alters the nature of the property from, at one point being jointly held property or tharwad to a property held solely by her…Having given anxious consideration to both views, we conclude that the minority has, in fact, understood the position correctly. Partition is an act by which the nature of the property is changed, reflecting an alteration in ownership.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 885)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR A. Raghunath
Respondents: AOR M. P. Vinod; Advocate Atul Shankar Vinod