Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the law has been repealed or superseded, the default legal position would be governed by the general statutory law applicable at the time of the deposit or inheritance, not the Marumakkathayam system.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Chellamma Kamalmma VS Narayana Pillai - Kerala"]- ["Ammalu Amma VS Lakshmi Amma - Kerala"]
In the diverse landscape of Indian personal laws, few systems are as unique as Marumakkathayam, a matrilineal customary law prevalent among certain communities in Kerala, particularly Nairs and some others in the Malabar region. But what happens when it comes to modern financial assets like Fixed Deposits (FDs) in banks? A common query arises: In respect of an FD in a bank, whether Marumakkathayam is apply?
This question touches on the intersection of ancient customary laws and contemporary banking practices. In this post, we'll break down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and principles to clarify why Marumakkathayam law generally does not apply to individual bank FDs. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Marumakkathayam, meaning inheritance through the sister's children, is a matrilineal system where property devolves through the female line. It traditionally governs joint family properties, known as tarwad (for Nairs) or thavazhi, managed by the senior female member or karanavan (manager). Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
Key features include:- Property passes to daughters and their descendants, not sons.- Focus on undivided family estates, not individual holdings.- Influenced by acts like the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933, and later the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, which modified its application. Kunhikrisanan v. Anantharaman - 1959 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 1
As one source notes: Marumakkathayam law governs inheritance and devolution of property among members of a matrilineal family system, especially in relation to joint family or tarwad properties. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
Courts have consistently limited its scope to family-owned assets, emphasizing: The law primarily governs inheritance, property devolution, and joint family or tarwad properties, not individual bank deposits. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
Fixed Deposits are contractual financial instruments between an individual (or joint holders) and the bank, governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and Banking Regulation Act, 1949. They are personal property, not inherently tied to family structures unless explicitly designated as such.
Generally, Marumakkathayam law does not apply to FDs because:- FDs are individual assets, not tarwad or joint family property. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075- Succession to such deposits follows general intestate laws, like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), especially post-1975 abolition of joint families in Kerala.- No automatic matrilineal devolution unless the FD forms part of a proven family estate.
In detailed analysis: Fixed deposits (FDs) in banks are individual financial instruments, created through a contractual relationship between the depositor and the bank. They are not inherently part of a joint family or tarwad property unless explicitly declared as such. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
Related judgments reinforce this. Under HSA Sections 15 and 17, Marumakkathayam influences succession for certain communities (e.g., Nairs in Travancore), but only for properties governed by customary law. For instance:- In a case involving intestate succession, the court applied Section 17 for a Nair female's estate under Marumakkathayam, prioritizing the mother over the husband—but this was for jointly acquired property, not bank deposits. M.MOHANAN PILLAI vs SUMATHY AMMA - 2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25283- The court established that the Marumakkathayam system governs succession for Nairs under the Travancore Nair Act, specifically applying Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act for inheritance. M.MOHANAN PILLAI vs SUMATHY AMMA - 2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25283
Section 17 remains operative post-abolition: Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 continues to govern succession despite the Joint Family Abolition Act, ensuring that certain individuals retain their inheritance rights. M D VARADARAJAN vs DEVAPALAN SO LAGE NARAYANAN - 2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 39445
However, these apply to traditional properties, not individual FDs. The law's scope pertains to property rights, succession, and devolution, which do not extend to individual bank accounts or deposits unless explicitly part of a family estate. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
Rare scenarios exist:- Joint family FD: If documented as tarwad property (e.g., funded by family funds, held in family name), devolution could follow Marumakkathayam. But proof is required—mere family membership isn't enough.- Streedhanam or gifts: Gifts to a female might be exclusive, not tavazhi property. Under the Customary Marumakkathayam Law... a gift (Streedhanam) to the Marumakkathayee female exclusively would enure to the tavazhi of her children... but would exclusively belong to her. Mariyakutty VS Noorjahan - 2004 Supreme(Ker) 648Tharayil Peedikayil Kazhungil Mariyakutty Azhikode Amson & Desom PO VS Tharayil Peedikayil Kazhungil Noorjahan Azhikode Amsom and Desom PO - 2004 Supreme(Ker) 388
Even then: If a deposit is explicitly made as a family or tarwad asset, or if a joint account is held by members of a tarwad... this is a matter of fact and specific documentation. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
Bank-specific cases, like moratoriums under Banking Regulation Act, suspend operations but don't invoke family laws. BISHOP OF KOTTAYAM VS UNION OF INDIA - 1985 Supreme(Ker) 176
Marumakkathayam's evolution shows its limits:- Tarwad management: Rights over family lands or tenancies don't extend to banks. A member of a tarwad in possession of tarwad property cannot be considered to be in occupation of 'the land of another'. PARVATHI AMMA VS PARVATHI AMMA - 1982 Supreme(Ker) 214- Repeals and modifications: Post-1975, joint families abolished, shifting to nuclear succession, but customs persist for pre-existing rights. BALAKRISHNA KURUP VS BHARGAVI AMMA - 1983 Supreme(Ker) 257- Alienation: Pre-1933 Act, even karanavan couldn't alienate shares freely. Kunhikrisanan v. Anantharaman - 1959 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 1
No case directly links FDs to Marumakkathayam; a bank fraud involving FDs focused on criminal law, not inheritance. N. R. BHAT VS STATE BY CBI/SPE BANGALORE - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 79
In legal disputes involving FDs, the applicable law is the Indian Contract Act and the Banking Regulations, not Marumakkathayam. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075
In conclusion, Marumakkathayam law does not generally apply to Fixed Deposits in a bank unless the FD is explicitly part of a family property or joint family estate governed by that law. Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075 For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal professional familiar with Kerala's customary laws.
#Marumakkathayam #BankFD #InheritanceLaw
Narasimhan (AIR 1975 SC 1835) to say that S.17 does not apply once the marumakkathayam law is repealed. ... ... The question referred to this Larger Bench is one of great importance in respect of the rights of inheritance to females governed by the Marumakkathayam law in Kerala. ... ... 2) Whether the continued existence of the system of Marumakkathayam Law a necessary pre-condition for the operation of S.17. ... ... 3) Whether S.17 of the Hindu Succession Act appl....
It is therefore necessary to examine them and understand the rule in those cases to determine whether what is laid down therein must necessarily apply to, or may be usefully and properly adopted, as a part of Marumakkathayam Law. ... That principle, if I may say so with respect, will apply with equal force to parties, governed by the Madras Act also. ... 34. ... voluntary or compulsory See Bank of New India Ltd v. ... The result of the recognising the rights, laid down by me above, in ....
It is therefore necessary to examine them and understand the rule in those cases to determine whether what is laid down therein must necessarily apply to, or may be usefully and properly adopted, as a part of Marumakkathayam Law. ... In Bank of New India v. ... That principle, if I may say so with respect, will apply with equal force to parties, governed by the Madras Act also.� ... 34. ... voluntary or compulsory see Bank of New India Ltd. v. ... Anantharaman 1959 KL....
Now the question is how far this has been altered or modified by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 22 of 1933. ... The question is whether such a right is deducible from S.38 of the Act. It must be confessed that the question is not free from difficulty. ... 1 This second appeal raises a question of some importance on the rights of a person governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act (XXII of 1933) to alienate his interest in the family properties. ... corresponding provision in Act XXII of 1933, namely, S.38 was considered and concluded Al....
Counsel submitted the same principle would apply in respect of items 3 to 5 as well. Counsel submitted that D2 is dealing with the property only representing the tavazhi since D2 being the senior most male member of the tavazhi. ... Whether the tenancy right set up by defendants 2 and 3 in respect of item Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 are true and valid? ... 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to profits and if so, what is the quantum? ... 5. ... ... Whether under the Customary Maru....
What remained for consideration is only whether it is Section 15 or Section 17 of the Act that should apply in the matter of succession to the estate of Lathika who died intestate. ... Hence mere place of residence could not govern the customary law of succession - whether it is Makkathayam or Marumakkathayam that applied to the person concerned. ... Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Travancore Ezhava Act states, “It shall apply to all Ezhavas domiciled in Travancore other than those who follow Makka....
Per contra it is contended by the contesting respondents that Section 17 itself gives sufficient indication that whether the provisions of Section 15 will apply or Section 17 will apply, will have to be decided as on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ... Bhasuradevi (1967 KLT 430 (FB)) a Full Bench of 5 Judges held that the three degree rule of Mitakshara Law regarding right by birth founded on religious obligation does not apply to Marumakkathayam system of law. ... The court....
Counsel submitted the same principle would apply in respect of items 3 to 5 as well. Counsel submitted that D2 is dealing with the property only representing the tavazhi since D2 being the senior most male member of the tavazhi. ... Whether the tenancy right set up by defendants 2 and 3 in respect of item Nos. 1,2,6 and 7 are true and valid? ... 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to profits and if so, what is the quantum? ... 5. ... ... Whether under the Customary Maruma....
This Act did not intend to legislate in respect of the tarwad property. ... But for the fact that that customary rule of inheritance, which is known as Marumakkathayam Law had obtained the force of law, the Courts would have had no jurisdiction to apply that custom to Mappilla families which lived as tarwad families. ... law which was governing the Mappillas until then in respect of all properties and this Act might be considered also to be a deviation from the customary law of Marumakkathayam which was....
The statement of law regarding the "distinction between an investigation in respect of a right", and "an investigation which is to decide whether some right should be or should not be given to conclude as to whether rights are preserved or not", succinctly laid down by Lord Morris in Director of Public ... But there is a manifest distinction between an investigation in respect of a right and an investigation which is to decide whether some right should be or should not be given. On a repeal the former i....
Murthy examined as PW1, was the clerk in the Syndicate Bank and who wrote the FD ledger in respect of FD No.4268, renewal of the FD on which loan is sanctioned. She is examined to prove that in FD ledger, no lien is marked referring to Ex.P1. FD ledger extract pertains to FD No.4268 which is a renewal of earlier FD 3909.
"The principal difference between a Nambudiri family and a Hindu family governed by the ordinary Mithakshara law is the absence of a right in the members of the family to demand a partition of the family properties. In this respect the law of the Nambudiris is the same as the Marumakkathayam law. It is generally assumed that this is due to the acceptance by the Nambudiris of the law of non-partition which they found prevailing amongst their Marumakkathayam brethren.
That was, however, a case where the question was pleaded and an issue had been raised. We may also observe that the decision in 1971 KLJ 809 supra had been considered by the Division Bench but the plea of equity had been repelled in 1983 KLT 939 supra. The incompetence or invalidity of a member of an undivided marumakkathayam tarwad did not apply to the transferor in that case.
the Reserve Bank may apply to the Central Government for an order of moratorium in respect of a banking company. where it appears to the Reserve Bank that there is good reason so to do. after considering the application made by the Reserve Bank under sub-section (1) may make an order of moratorium staying the commencement or continuance of all actions and conditions as it thinks fit and proper and may from time to time extend the period.
H. The learned Counsel for the appellant has cited the decision in Pathummama v. Land Tribunal (1980 KLT. 155). Under the Marumakkathayam Law as it stood at the relevant time no member of a marumakkathayam tarwad had an alienable interest in the tarwad property and not even the karanavan was competent to create a lease in respect of his share in the tarwad properties. He cannot for that reason be said to be in possession of the land of another, since be continues to be a co-owner in respect of the entire property. It is therefore not possible to hold that the appellants in ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
