The partition of tharwad properties in Lakshadweep is governed by the customary marumakkathayam law, which allows the mother to represent the minor children in the partition process.

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.3/2012 on the file of the District Court, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep, dismissing the above appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the Munsiff's Court, Amini in O.S.No.8/1994. The plaintiffs and defendants are members of an ancient tharwad in Lakshadweep island by name Palalam, who were following customary marumakkathayam system. Under the above system, there are two types of properties namely the tharawad properties called 'velliazhcha properties' (Friday properties) and personal properties known by name 'Belazcha properties' (Thursday properties) or Thingalazcha properties (Monday properties). While the owners of the Thursday properties can alienate the same freely, the Friday properties cannot be alienated and the members of the tharwad can only take income from the said property. However, if all the members of the tharwad joins together and partition the Friday property by effecting a complete partition converting the Friday property into Thursday property, thereafter, it will have all the characteristics of Thursday property.

2. In the instant case, the members of Palalam tharawad entered into a partition deed No.78 of 1980 of Amini Sub Registry (A68 and Ext.B1). The dispute involved in this case revolves around the question whether Ext.A68 is a complete partition or not. According to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs 1 to 5 were minors and other plaintiffs were not born when Ext.B1 partition deed was executed. Further, the minors were represented by their mother in the said partition. It was contended that their mother had no authority to represent them and as such, the partition deed entered into with the mother as their guardian is not binding on them. It was contended that the parities are governed by Mahomedan Law and as such, father and in his absence, father's father, alone were competent to represent the minors.

3. On the other hand, according to the defendants, in Lakshadweep, erstwhile marumakkathayam law as such is not being applied and in the case of minors, invariably mothers are representing them as guardian. It was contended that Ext.B1 partition deed executed by all the members of the tharwad is a complete partition and as such, the parties are free to assign their shares and that the suit challenging the validity of Ext.A68 partition has been rightly dismissed by the trial court as well as the 1st appellate court.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were formulated :

i. When once it is proved that an item of property has been allotted as velliazhcha of a thavazhi in a tharawad partition, would it become velazhcha without any act or application by the thavazhi members; should not such properties be converted into velazhcha by the thavazhi members with the concurrence of other thavazhies branched from the same tharawad who have maranavakasam rights ? ii. Is there anything to show that the plaintiffs, who were either minors as on the date of Ext.A68 or not born then, were aware of the inclusion of the suit properties as valazhcha in that document and allotment thereof exclusively to defendants 1 to 3 and their deceased brother Kasmi ? iii. Have the plaintiffs accepted Ext.A68 insofar as the suit properties are concerned as genuine at any point of time ? iv. Did Ext.A68 really bind the 7th defendant insofar as the suit properties were concerned, she being a rustic illiterate woman, who was never told about the contents thereof ? v. Was the 7th defendant competent to represent the plaintiffs and could she have acted as their guardian ? Was not the father the guardian of properties of a minor muslim ? Is not Ext.A68 void as against the plaintiffs insofar as the suit properties are concerned ?

5. Both sides were heard in detail about the above substantial questions of law.

6. The nature and effect of document No.78/1980 (Ext.A68 and B1) executed by the plaintiffs and defendants is the bone of