ACHUTHAN NAIR versus CHINNAMU AMMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 454 · Decided: 13-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

4 54 
ACHUTH!\N NAIR 
A 
v. 
CHINNAMU AMMA AND OTHERS 
August 13, 1965 
(K. St:BfiA R.10, J. R. MUDllOLKAR AND R. S. BACH.\ WAT, JJ.] 
B 
Marumakkat/Ulyanr Law -Properly 
u1hcther 
belongs 
ti> 
1uanag~r 
individually or 10 tarwad or tavazhi-·Presu1nption. 
A suit wa<> tiled by the some members of a malahJr tavazl:i again9t its 
manager anc.l olhers for n"taintcnance and other relicf9. 
The ~!ppellant was 
the 4th defendant in the suit while his mother was the Isl defendant. 1be 
srud lava~Jzj owned a nun1bcr of properties. 
In 1he plaint it was alleged 
that a certain property called the chalakk<>dc property was lhc property of 
the ta1,:az/Jl and therefore the plaintiffs \\'ere entitled to n1aintenance from 
its income also. 
According to the plaintiffs the 1st defendant W39 the 
karnnvati or manager of the t(n•azhi_ property and the 4th defendant wu 
the de facto manager. 
The defendants denied that the said chalakkode 
property belonged to the tava;:hi but alleged that it was purcha.'iCd from 
and out of the prh·ate funds or defendants I and 4. 
The trial court ac· 
cepted the defendants' case and gave a decree to the plaintiffs witf>out 
taking into consideration the income from the chalakkode property. Tbe 
High Court. bov.:cvcr, laking into account the relevant pref)umprion~ under 
Marumak.kath~1yam knv by v.:hich the parties \Vere governed hchi that the 
said property belonged to the hn•ar.hi and order the trial court to fix 
the 
rate of maintenance after taking into :iccount the income from it. lbe 
4th defendant. :iftrr oht:iining a c!rtific:itc frC'lnl the High Court preferred an 
appeal to :his < 'L'Urt. 
The plaintiffs, the first defendant, and O'lher delcn· 
dants \vcrc in1plcadcd 3.i rc~poodants in the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant ii w;is urged : (I) The !st and 4th defen-
dants were not managf!1' of the ta1·azhi prop~nic-.; (2) Even if th~y were, 
the!\~ 
,~·as no prcsumj"Jlion under the 
~falahar La\v that the properties 
acquired in their nan1e-s were tavazhi propc:tie.\; (3) Even if there wu 
such a presumption the appellant had proved by relev::int evidence that 
!he chah;,kkode propcr:y IA'aS the sclf-acouired properly of lhc 1st defen-
dant and himself. 
HELD : (i) A family governed by Marumakkathayam law is known 
as a tarwad; it con.<tists of a mother and her children, \\'hether male or 
female, and all their descendants \Yh-:thcr male or female, in the female 
line. 
A tavaz.hi is a branch of a carwad. 1·hc management of a tarwad 
or tavazhi ordinarilv rests in the eldest male memher of the tart\:ad pr 
tava:hi. 
But there· <ire inc;t<1nC~ 'vhcre the eldest female member is the 
manager. The male n1anag:er i~ c~11lc<l the karnavan and the female one 
Karnavnti. 
I-le or 5he 9tands in a fiduciary relationship \vith the members 
of the tarwad or tavn,hi as the case may be. [457 E-H] 
(ii) Under Hindu law when i1 is .proved ~r admilled that .a family 
possessed sufficient nucleus \\'1th the aid of. which a mem~er might. ha~ 
n1aJe an acquisition of property, there anse~ a presumption that tt 
IS 
joint family property and the onus is. $hif1ed I~ the _individual ~ember to 
establish that the properly was acqwred by him wrthout the aJd of the 
said nucleus. 
But the said principle has not been accepted or applied to 
acquisition of properties in the name Clf a junior member of a tarwad 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
' 
" 
• 
A 
ACHUTHAN v. CHINNAMU (Subba Rao. J.) 
455 
(anandravan). It has been held that there is no presumption either way, 
and that the question has to bo decided on the facts of each case. 
[458 
C-E] 
Further, the settled law is that if a property is acquired in the name of 
the karnavan ther·.e is a strong preswnp:ion that it is tarwad property and 
that the presumption must hold good unless it is rebutted by acceptable 
evidence. [458 E-F] 
B 
Govinda v. Nani, (1913) 36 Mad. 304, Dhamu Shetty v. Deiamma, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AJ.R. 1918 Mad. 1367, Soopiadath Ahmad v. Mammad Kunhi, A.I.R. 
1926 Mad. 643, Thata Amma v. Thankappa, A.l.R. 1947 Mad. 137 and 
Chathu Nambiar v. Sekharan Nambiar, A.LR. 1925 Mad. 430, approvod. 
(iii) On the evidence it was clear that the lst defendant was tl)e 
karnavati of the tavazhi and her son the 4th defendant an advocate, had 
lx.>en managing the properties on her behalf. 
If that was so, so far as 
the 1st defendant was concerned there was a strong presumption that the 
said property \Vas acquired from and out of the funds of the tavazhi; and 
so f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.