Chandrashekhar, J.—In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed the constitutionality of the provisions of the Madras Aliyasantana (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1961. The State of Mysore has been impleaded as Respondent-because of the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act passed by the Mysore State Legislature. The learned Advocate-General appeared for the State and defended the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act.

(2) The petitioner belongs to the section of Jain Community in South Kanara District which is governed by the Aliyasanthana system of personal law. The genealogy of the family is set out in the table below:-

RATNAMALA

(Petr.)

_______________________________|_______________________________

| | | |

Padmavati Nagakumar Ratna Kumar Bhaskara alias

ails R. 3 R. 4 Bhagyakumar

Kasturi R.5

R. 2

_____|______________

| |

Prasantha Unnamed Female

R. 6 R. 7

(3) Respondents 2 and 3 filed a suit O. S. 76/1962 on the file of the then Subordinate Judge, Mangalore, for partition of the properties of the undivided Aliyasantana family. During the pendency of that suit, the present petition was filed. On an application by the petitioner, this Court made an interim order staying further proceedings in that suit. Later, that interim order was vacated. The Civil Judge, Mangalore, (the successor to the Subordinate Judge) proceeded with the trial of the suit and made a decree therein. Against that decree an appeal is pending in this Court.

(4) The petitioner's contentions are based on Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.

(5) To appreciate the petitioner's contentions as to the constitutionality of the provisions of the Mysore Act, it is convenient to have a brief survey of the customary Aliyasantana Law regarding succession, partition and devolution of shares as set out in the two Full Bench decisions of this Court-Sundera Adappa v. Girija 1962 40 Mys LJ 1 : AIR 1962 Mys 72 and Bhagirathi v. Darakke. 1965 (2) Mys LJ 796 and the modifications brought about by successive legislation including the impugned Act.

(6) As stated in Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law Aliyasantana Law is the customary law governing certain communities amongst Hindus in South Kanara District. 'Kutumba' is the name given to the joint family consisting of males and females, all descended in the female line from a common ancestress. Kutumba may consist of two or more branches known as 'Kavarus', each Kavaru or branch consisting of one of the female members of the Kutumba and her descendants in the female line. The outstanding feature of the Aliyasantana Kutumba is that like the Marumakkathayam Tarwad, it is governed by a matriarchal system, the devolution being through female line. In other words, while the children of the female members of the family are members of the Kutumba, the children of the male members are not.

(7) Under the customary Aliyasantana Law, every member of a Kutumba has equal rights in the properties of the Kutumba by reason of his or her birth. On the death of any member, his or her interest in the Kutumba properties devolves on other members of the Kutumba by survivorship as both male and female members have equal right in the Kutumba property. The limited estate of a Hindu woman, so familiar to Mitakshara, is unknown to Aliyasantana system.

(8) Till the passing of the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act), no member of a Kutumba nor even a Kavaru could enforce compulsory partition. A partition in an Aliyasantana family could be effected only with the consent of all the adult members of the family. Such partition would ordinarily be binding on minors. Junior members of the family were entitled to be maintained by the Yajaman or Yajamanti (head of the family). The right to maintenance was the mode in which a junior member enforced his or her right of co-proprietorship in the Kutumba properties. Under certain circumstances, junior members were also entitled to separate main