SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(Ker) 241

Judges : M.S.MENON,T.K.JOSEPH,S.VELU PILLAI
Narayani Amma - Appellant
Versus
Sankara Pillai - Respondent
Case No : S. A. No. 825 of 1953 (T)
Decided On : 10/03/1960
Advocates Appeared :
K. P. Abraham; K. T. Ninan; V. Achutha Menon; For Appellants T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer; N. Krishnaswamy Iyengar; For 1st Respondent S. Madhadeva Iyer; For Respondents 4 & 6

The need for clear and unambiguous evidence to establish special usages modifying the ordinary law of succession.

Headnote:

Inheritance - Sree Bhandara Chettis - Hindu Mitakshara Law - [SUBJECT] - S.18 of the Travancore Civil Courts Act - The court considered the custom modifying principles of Hindu Mitakshara Law in matters of inheritance and succession. The custom pleaded by the plaintiffs was not proved and the parties were held to be governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. The court also emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence to establish special usages modifying the ordinary law of succession.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was to set aside a deed of partition and for recovery of possession of immovable properties. The properties were acquired in the name of Mathevi Kali. The plaintiff claimed that the parties were governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law modified by custom and that female members who were married in the approved form lose all rights in their family while those married in the unapproved form retain interest in their original family. The plaintiff also had an alternative case that the parties were governed by marumakkathayam law.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court held that the parties were governed by marumakkathayam law, but the District Judge of Trivandrum held that the law applicable to the parties was Hindu Mitakshara Law and that the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs was not proved. The court set aside the decrees and remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh decision on the evidence on record.

Issues: The main issues were the law governing the parties, ownership of the properties, and adverse possession and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence to establish special usages modifying the ordinary law of succession. The court held that the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs was not proved and the parties were governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law.

Final Decision: The court set aside the decrees and remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh decision on the evidence on record.

Judgment :-

1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench for decision, by the following order;

"Important questions of law regarding inheritance among Sree Bhandara Chettis - a minority community of considerable numerical strength in the Trivandrum District - arise for decision in this case, and the rulings of the Travancore High Court on the matter are not uniform. We consider that there should be an authoritative pronouncement on these questions by a Full Bench, and so we accede to the request of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and refer this case for hearing and disposal by a Full Bench".

2. The suit was to set aside a deed of partition and for recovery of possession of immovable properties in case the defendants trespassed on the same after suit or were found to be in possession. The properties which form the subject matter of the suit were acquired in the name of Mathevi Kali (deceased). She had two sons, Padmanabhan and Raman, and three daughters, Bhagavathy, Lekshmi (first defendant) and Narayani. Bhagawathi had five daughters including the first plaintiff; the other daughters are not parties to the suit. Padmanabhan had not married but he and Raman were having one wife, Gouri, in common. Gouri's children are defendants 2 to 6. Defendants 8 to 10 are the children of Lekshmi. Narayani died without issue. On 23-2-1100 Padmanabhan, Raman and Lekshmi executed a partition deed Ext. A in respect of the properties which stood in the name of their deceased mother Mathevi Kali and this deed is sought to be set aside in this suit. The plaintiff's case is that the parties who belong to the Sree Bandara or Sree Pandara Chetti community in Trivandrum are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law modified by custom and that female members who are married in the approved or thalikettu form lose all rights in their family while those married in the sambandhom form retain interest in their original family. According to the plaintiff, Bhagawathy alone among the three daughters of Mathevi Kali was married in the sambandhom form while the other sisters were married in the thalikettu form and of the daughters of Bhagawathi, all except the plaintiff were married in the thalikettu form, the plaintiff alone having been married in the sambandhom form. It is also alleged that the properties belonged to Mathevi Kali as her stridhanam property and that the same devolved on the plaintiff as the other female members had lost their rights to the same, having been married in the thalikettu form. The plaintiff had an alternative case that in case this custom was not found, it should be held that the parties were governed by marumakkathayam law and that the partition deed which was not assented to by all the members was to be treated as inoperative. The property obtained by Padmanabhan in partition was thereafter gifted by him to the 7th defendant who is the wife of the fifth defendant, and this gift deed was also sought to be set aside. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff's son got impleaded as additional second plaintiff.

3. Written statements were filed by defendants 1, 3, 5 and 7. The first defendant contended that the parties were governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law. She denied the custom pleaded by the plaintiffs regarding the two forms of marriage and the effect of the same in the matter of inheritance and succession. She also denied the allegation that the parties were governed by marumakkathayam law. Another contention was that the properties did not belong to Mathevi Kali in whose name they stood and that the same were acquired by the husband of Mathevi Kali for the benefit of the family. The plaintiff and her sisters to whom property had been allotted under the partition were stated to have accepted the arrangement and taken possession of their shares. It was also contended that the suit was barred by adverse possession and limitation. The contentions of defendants 3, 5 and 7 were more or less the same as those raised by the first


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top