IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
P.K.Balan, Son Of Late Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
Karthiyayani, D/o. Late Kochukuttan Alias Kittu - Respondent
SA No.751, 659 of 1996
Decided on : 20-12-2022
State Reorganization Act, 1956 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII Rules 3,4 and 5 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 60 - Property - Suit for Partition - Plaintiffs claiming a share in plaint schedule property, filed suit for partition – Ext.A8 letter shows that even way back in year 1960, there was a clear understanding in family as to how property was to be partitioned - Para 30.
Finding of the Court : It shows that there was an understanding in family as to how property is to be partitioned - Both these letters are of year 1960 - In Ext.A8, there is also a reference to payment of an amount of money by brothers to sisters - Parties are silent about this agreement - Plaintiffs do not admit or deny having received amount stated in Ext.A8 - As far as Sankunni's share of property is concerned, self acquired property goes to his wife - Evidence has been brought in to show that Lakshmi, widow of Sankunni has settled property in favour of sons - Question of adverse possession etc., raised by defendants do not arise for consideration in light of Court aforesaid conclusion - That being position, plaintiffs cannot claim any right or share in plaint schedule property - It is true that it is against concurrent findings of trial court as well as appellate court that law applicable to malayala kammalas is Hindu law modified by custom that is being interfered with in this Second Appeal - As both courts have committed a fundamental mistake in applying law that is applicable to parties, Court is constrained to interfere with said finding, which is apparently a question of law and not a finding on fact.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
C.S.Sudha, J.
What is the law of inheritance or succession that is applicable to Kammalas domiciled in Cochin? Before the formation of the United State of Travancore and Cochin by virtue of the Covenant dated the 29th May, 1949, entered into between the Rulers of Travancore and Cochin, was the personal law applicable to Kammalas domiciled in Travancore and Cochin the same? Before the State Reorganization Act, 1956 came into being, was the personal law applicable to Kammalas domiciled in Malabar, a Part A State, being part of Madras, the same as that in Cochin and Travancore? Is there any classification of Kammalas of Cochin as pandi kammalas, malayala kammalas and ordinary kammalas? Are they governed by the same personal law or different personal law? Let us examine.
2. These second appeals are before us based on a reference order dated 13/04/2007 of a learned single Judge, according to whom, there are conflicting views regarding the personal law applicable to kammalas of Cochin and also their form of marriage. In the opinion of the learned Judge, important questions of law are involved, namely, the personal law applicable to kammalas of Cochin; whether there is a sub division of kammalas into malayala kammalas and ordinary kammalas ; what is their form of marriage ; whether the form of marriage alone or payment of 'sthreedhanam' in addition to the form of marriage would take away the right of the daughters to a share in the family property, which aspects are required to be decided by a Division Bench. Thus, the matter has come up before us.
3. The aforesaid two appeals arise from a preliminary decree and judgment in O.S.No.462/1985 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge's court, Ernakulam, by which a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule property has been granted. The appellants in S.A.No.659/1996 are defendants 2, 3, 9, 12 and the heirs of the tenth defendant. The 11th defendant in the suit is the appellant in S.A.No.751/1996.
4. The plaint averments in brief are: -The two plaintiffs; defendants 10 to 13; Krishnan, the father of defendants 1 to 8 and husband of the ninth defendant and late Dakshayani, the mother of defendants 14 to 18 are the children of late Kochukuttan @ Kittu (hereinafter referred to as Kittu). The parties are malayala kammalas, governed by Hindu Mitakshara law modified by custom. Kittu had a brother named Sankunni. Kittu was married to Ooli and Sankunni to Lakshmi. Kittu passed away in the year 1938 and his brother Sankunni in the year 1952. Lakshmi died in the year 1971 and Ooli died in the year 1974. The brothers had purchased 30 cents of land as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 13/01/1109. Out of the 30 cents, about one cent was surrendered for widening the Mullasseri canal. The remaining 29 cents of land is the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, as per the custom prevailing among the malayala kammalas, the sons and daughters have equal right in the family property, unless the daughters are given away in marriage in the kudivaippu form on payment of sthreedhanam. The widow has no right in the family property. When a male member dies without any issues, the heirs of the male member inherit the property left by the deceased to the exclusion of the widow. The custom among the community is antique, continuous and invariable. The plaintiffs; late Dakshayani and the 13th defendant Devaki were not married off in the kudivaippu form of marriage.
4.1. Sankunni died in the year 1952 without any issues. Therefore, the plaint schedule property devolved on the children of his brother, Kittu. Late Dakshayani and the 13th defendant Devaki were married off during the life-time of Kittu. The plaintiffs were married off after the death of Kittu. None of the daughters were given sthreedhanam and their marriage was solemnized in the 'Sambandham form'. At the time of marriage, it wa
Lilly Mercilin Lewis v. Chanji
The court upheld Marumakkathayam law over Hindu law for succession of property, concluding the sale deed was invalid as the vendors lacked title, affirming the original rulings.
Under Marumakkathayam law, property obtained by a female and her children in partition retains its tharwad characteristics, ensuring rights for future descendants.
The Hindu Succession Act's provisions do not apply retrospectively to successions that occurred before its enactment, precluding daughters from inheriting property from fathers who died before 1956.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the settlement deed was found to be valid and not hit by the Doctrine of Reserve, and the law applicable was only the Hindu Succession Act 195....
Custom – Custom evolves by conduct – Customs too, like law, cannot remain stuck in time and others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.