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…!
The law's scope regarding movables is also discussed in relation to gifts and inheritance, such as in ["Mariyakutty VS Noorjahan - Kerala"], which debates whether gifts (Streedhanam) made to a Marumakkathayee female enure to her exclusive estate or to the tavazhi (family unit), indicating movables' importance in inheritance law.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Krishnan Nair VS Chathu Nair - Madras"]- ["Janaki Amma VS Kunjikali Amma - Kerala"]- ["Mariyakutty VS Noorjahan - Kerala"]- ["CROOS v. DE SOYSA"]- ["Raghavan VS Soumini Amma - Kerala"]- ["Tharayil Peedikayil Kazhungil Mariyakutty Azhikode Amson & Desom PO VS Tharayil Peedikayil Kazhungil Noorjahan Azhikode Amsom and Desom PO - Kerala"]
In the intricate world of Hindu personal laws, Marumakkathayam stands out as a unique matrilineal system primarily observed among communities like Nairs in Kerala. But a common question arises: whether Marumakkathayam is applicable to movables also? This blog delves into this issue, drawing from judicial precedents and legal principles to provide clarity. Note that this is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
Marumakkathayam, meaning 'inheritance through the sister's children,' governs succession in a matrilineal joint family known as tarwad or thavazhi. The karnavan (manager) oversees family properties, which devolve among female descendants and their children. This system emphasizes collective ownership and partition, rooted in customs codified in acts like the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933, and influenced by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. Chellamma Kamalmma VS Narayana Pillai - 1992 Supreme(Ker) 377
Historically, it applies to communities in Kerala, Travancore, and Cochin, with presumptions of applicability in certain taluks without needing proof each time. Raman VS Narayanan - 1989 Supreme(Ker) 497
Case law consistently shows Marumakkathayam law centers on immovable property like land, houses, and buildings. The law's core revolves around descent, devolution, and partition of these assets within the tarwad. For instance:
Judgments emphasize stirpital division under Section 48 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act for thavazhi properties, again focusing on land and buildings. Kanakku Veettil K. P. Sankarankutty Menon VS Malathy Amma - 1990 Supreme(Ker) 272
Generally, Marumakkathayam law does not explicitly extend to movable properties such as cash, jewelry, vehicles, or household items. The provided documents lack rulings applying its presumptions or devolution rules to movables. Key points include:
In Ramachandran VS Vijayan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1075, discussions limit to immovable partitions, with no mention of movables. Similarly, C. T. Radhakrishnan VS C. T. Viswanathan Nair - 2006 1 Supreme 231 addresses ownership and devolution of immovable assets.
While immovables dominate, some judgments touch on movables, reinforcing their separate treatment:
These cases suggest movables may follow general Hindu law or individual ownership, not Marumakkathayam's joint family rules.
Marumakkathayam's applicability requires verifying community customs, especially post-Hindu Succession Act. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR vs K.VASUDEVAN - 2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14164 Courts remand cases lacking evidence on whether parties follow it, stressing Sections 15 and 17.
Pre-statutory law, even a male's separate property devolved to tarwad, not wife/children—but again, focused on immovables or leaseholds. M. P. Kadungon VS E. K. Kadungon - 1988 Supreme(Ker) 369
Exceptions or limitations:- Absence of explicit mention doesn't fully exclude movables, but emphasis is on immovables.- Movables might fall under general Hindu Succession Act or personal laws. DEVAKI VS KUMARAN - 1977 Supreme(Ker) 20- Post-1975 abolition, rights accrued under Marumakkathayam persist, but stirpital divisions apply mainly to family immovables. Kanakku Veettil K. P. Sankarankutty Menon VS Malathy Amma - 1990 Supreme(Ker) 272
Customary variations exist; e.g., some communities presume Marumakkathayam without proof. Raman VS Narayanan - 1989 Supreme(Ker) 497 Others, like Valans, follow distinct customs where widows lack inheritance rights. KALI PENNAMMA VS ST. PAULS CONVENT - 1971 Supreme(Ker) 228
This analysis highlights the law's nuanced scope. For estate planning or disputes in Kerala, professional advice ensures compliance with evolving jurisprudence.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes judicial trends and is for informational purposes only. Laws change, and outcomes depend on facts—consult a legal expert.
#Marumakkathayam, #HinduLaw, #PropertyInheritance
The question which arises in the case is whether in the case of an unpartible tarwad, the imparti-bility having been created by statute, the principles of Hindu Law applicable to Mitakshara family should be applied with all its implications to a Marumakkathayam family. The law as stated by Mr. ... There was also no specific allegation either in the plaint or in the registered notice, Exhibit A-1, as regards this Rs. 7,500. ... The third point pressed is as regards movables. ... tarwad under the #HL_STAR....
The trial court among the issues framed also framed the issue as to whether the parties in the suit were governed by Marumakkathayam law. ... Learned counsel also pointed out that there is no admission on the part of PW1 that Veluthedath Nairs are following Marumakkathayam law of inheritance. ... Learned counsel also pointed out that the testimony of PW1 and DW1 will go to show that the parties and community is following Marumakkathayam law of inheritance. ... The cou....
... It has however been held that this section has no retrospective effect so that the law applicable to the parties in 1899 was the customary Marumakkathayam law of Malabar. ... As regards the movables it was contended that the same did not exist. ... The parties in that case were Mohamadans governed by Marumakkathayam law. The first question referred to the Full Bench in that case was whether one Ayisumma and her children took the properties in question with the incidents of property held by a tarwad.....
Unnikrishna Menon was in terms not applicable to that case itself. Unlike here, the persons in whose name the documents in that case stood did not exhaust the full membership of the concerned marumakkathayam unit. ... Lekshmi Amma also does not therefore help the appellants here. ... 10. We shall now consider whether the lower court's finding that the consideration for Ext. ... As for the movables found to be available for division, nothing was urged before us against the lower court's finding. That par....
... Whether under the Customary Marumakkathayam Law applicable in the Malabar area prior to the passing of the Mappila Marumakkathayam Act, 1939, is there any presumption that a gift (Streedhanam) to the Marumakkathayee female exclusively would enure to the tavazhi of her children ... We have already indicated that the cardinal question to be decided is whether a gift made to a Marumakkathayee female by way of Streedhanam would enure to her exclusively as per the Marumakkathayam Law #H....
... Whether under the Customary Marumakkathayam Law applicable in the Malabar area prior to the passing of the Mappila Marumakkathayam Act 1939, is there any presumption that a gift (Streedhanam) to the Marumakkathayee female exclusively would enure to the tavazhi of her children together ... We have already indicated that the cardinal question to be decided is whether a gift made to a marumakkathayee female by way of Streedhanam would enure to her exclusively as per the Marumakkathayam#HL_END....
Cheethamma,10 Cochin Law Reports 401 and since followed in the erstwhile Cochin jurisdiction is applicable to the case and if so whether it could not now be adopted. In view to the importance of the question raised this case has been referred to the Full Bench. ... They further questioned the availability of B Schedule movables for purpose of partition and also the right of the plaintiffs to mesne profits as claimed. They also put forth a claim by way of improvements. ... That is to say, the legacy was ....
The dispute is whether these properties also are divisible in shares of 1/18 or only among the widow and children in shares of 1/ 5 under the proviso to Section 48 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. Trial court decreed only shares of 1/5. ... When a property stands in the name of a joint tenant, whether he is a managing member or only a junior member, the presumption is that it belongs to him, whether the membership is of a joint family or marumakkathayam tharvad. ... C schedule items ....
he or she was entitled to claim such partition or not under the marumakkathayam or nambudri law applicable to him or her, and such share shall be deemed to have been allotted to him or her absolutely." ... They also found that no possession passed to the defendant under the registered marupat Ext. A-1, and that the defendant was not entitled to set up any leasehold right on the basis of the said document. ... It arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the A schedule immovable property and B schedule movables, ....
The court below has also found that the properties mentioned in O.S.38/1976 and in schedules A and B of the plaint in O.S.99/1977 (except the two clinics in schedule B) belonged to Raman Nair. The C schedule movables, even though belonged to Raman Nair, are found not now available for partition. ... The second marriage of Raman Nair was at a time when the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1933 was in force. ... such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a ....
Iyer appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the presumption made by the Court below is not correct. Learned counsel submitted that the presumption that a gift in favour of a female enure to a thavazhi was not the law. This was the law that was brought out by the statutory amendments. According to the learned counsel, the Marumakkathayam Law that is applicable to the Islanders is the prestine Marumakkathayam Law and not the Marumakkathayam Law as codified by the customs or statutes appearing in the other parts of the country.
would have been governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. 1932; the Travancore Nayar Act; the Travancore Ezhava Act; the Iravancore Nanjinad Vellala Act; the Travancore Kshatriya Act; the Travancore Krishnavaka Marumakkathayee Act; the Cochin Marumakkathayam Act; or the Cochin Nayar Act with respect to the matters for which provision is made in this Act; or 'Marumakkathayam law' is defined in S.31(1)(h) of the Hindu Succession Act as a system of law applicable to persons who. it is also necessary to note the definition of "Marumakkathayam law" contained in S.3(h....
In view of the controversy between the parties with regard to the law of inheritance, point for consideration is whether Marumakkathayam law is applicable or Makkathayam law. If the Marumakkathayam law is applicable, the claim of the plaintiff has to be upheld. On the contrary if it is found that the applicability is Makkathayam law, the plaintiff has to be non suited.
The settled legal position is that before the advent of Madras Marumakkathayam Act, even the separate property held by a marumakkathayee male devolved upon the members of the tarwad and his wife and children or other heirs in the agnatic line could inherit nothing. Of course, when the members accepted the obligations of the acquirer the property could be proceeded against. Act did not recognise heirship in the wife and children of marumakkathayee male even in respect of his separate properties, there cannot be any doubt that after the death of Nambi the property devolved on his brother Kadun....
He also referred to the Travancore State Manual by Velu Pillai and Castes and Tribes of Southern India by Edgar Thurston, who only follows Mr. L. K. Anantha Krishna Iyer and to the Census Report of 1931. The learned judge referred to the above mentioned decision of M. S. Menon J. and relied on some treatises. the controversy was whether the law of inheritance applicable to that community was Makkathayam or Marumakkathayam.
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
