The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Hindu Succession Act and its impact on the rights of individuals under the Marumakkathayam Law, as well as the requirements for a valid oral agreement for sale and possession under S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Some interesting questions of law were raised before me in this appeal filed by the defendants and the memorandum of cross objection filed by the plaintiffs.

2. First plaintiff is a Marumakkathayee Nair lady, who was unmarried and issueless when her tharavad got divided in December 1953. Ten items of landed properties, including the three plaint schedule items, were allotted to her share. She was married in 1957 and plaintiffs 2 to 4 were born. She is a teacher, who lived with her elder brother Parameswara Menon till she was transferred outside station. He was managing her properties and collecting rent and income on her behalf. Her share included a building, which stood in the share allotted to another member. Parameswara Menon acted as her agent for demolition of that building and constructing one in Item No.l. When he lost his own house by alienation, he was permitted to occupy that building with defendants, who are his widow and children. Menon died in 1981. Since defendants thereafter asserted title and possession, this suit was filed for recovery on the strength of title.

3. Defendants contended that, on the date of partition itself, in December 1953, first plaintiff agreed to sell the properties to Parameswara Menon for Rs. 20,500/- and put him in possession. The entire sale consideration is said to have been paid. Title of plaintiffs 2 to 4 was denied. Benefits of S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act were claimed with an alternate plea of adverse possession. Prayer for recovery was thus resisted.

4. Trial court found 'the properties to be the thavazhi properties of the plaintiffs. Contract for sale by the first plaintiff was accepted only regarding the one-fourth share of the first plaintiff in Item No.l. Plea of adverse possession and limitation as well as benefits of S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act were found against on the finding that Menon was only managing her properties and residing in the building with her permission. Suit was decreed except regarding the one-fourth share of the first plaintiff in Item No. 1. The disallowed portion of the prayeris the subject matter of cross 'objection.

5. A single bench of this court, interpreting the decision in Surfflari and others v. Laxmi and others (AIR 1980 S.C.198), held in MadhaviAmma v. Kalliani Amma (1988(2) KLT 964):

"The Marumakkathayam Law, whether statutory or otherwise, stands repealed by the Hindu Succession Act. The effect of repeal of a statute is that it ceases to be a part of the corpus juris or body of law. To put it differently, the law was regarded, in the absence of provision to the contrary, as having never existed, except as to matters and transactions past and closed".

Therefore, the argument was that, when the Marumakkathayam system itself was repealed and substituted by the Hindu Succession Act, at a time when the first plaintiff remained unmarried and issueless, the subsequent birth of the children cannot change her rights. So also, it was argued that, therefore, the Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition) Act of 1976 itself was reduntant and, at any rate, plaintiffs 2 to 4 cannot get any right.

6. With due respect, I do not think that the Supreme Court has laid down the law as interpreted in the above decision. What S.4 of the Hindu Succession Act says and what the Supreme Court interpreted is that S.4 is having over-riding effect only in respect of matters dealt with in that Act. In view of the clear provisions of law and the unambiguous interpretation of it in Sundari's case (AIR1980S.C.198), rendering it the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution, I do not think that a reference to a Division Bench is necessary on the question. Regarding other matters, the Mar-umakkathayam Law or any other law remained unaffected. There is no question of the Hindu Succession Act having repealed them. In other respects, joint tenancy under the Hindu, Marumakkathayam or Aliyasanthanam laws continued and they were disrupted only when th