C.T. RADHAKRISHNAN versus C.T. VISWANATHAN NAIR AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 16-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

C.T. RADHAKRISHNAN 
v. 
C.T. VISWANATHAN NAIR AND ANR. 
JANUARY 16, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Hindu law: 
Madras Marumakkalhayam Act, 1932, Sec/ion 38: 
Ancestral property-Some of lhe legal heirs assigning their share in the 
property in favour of another legal heir on consideralion by wi;o• of a release 
deed-Challenged by one of the legal heirs/assignors on the ground that he 
A 
B 
c 
was minor when release deed executed-Filing of a suit for permanent 
injunction and recovery of possession by the Vendee//egal heir-Trial Court D 
held the release deed valid on the ground that it was not an assignment of 
undivided shares in the property and the minor legal heir had no alienable 
right in the undivided thavazhi property-Affirmed by the first Appellate Court 
and the High Court-On appeal, held: Release of shares/rights in the property 
by all the other members in favour of a member of the same thavazhi is valid 
in Marumakkathayam /aw-Transaction in question could also be construed E 
as partition arrange men/ enlered into by all members of thava::.hi since shares 
of the members satisfied in terms of consideralion amount in lie1< of such 
) 
·Y 
assignment-Minor-legal heir did not claim his share in the property by filing 
a suit within three years after attaining lhe age of majority; the assignment 
~~~ 
F 
Appellant and Respondents belong to Chokkura thaliyadathtarwad, 
a Hindu family governed by Marumakkathayam system of law under the 
Madras Marumakkathayam Act. The dispute arose between them in 
respect of claim of share in the property. The property in dispute originally 
owned by one 'C' and after her death, the property devolved on her G 
thavazhi, two daughters and their children. Respondent is the son of one 
-{ 
of the daughters and appellant is the son from another daughter of the 
original owner of the property. Appellant's mother acting for self, her two 
minor sons including appellant and her two major sons sold the property 
in favour of the only other legal heir, the respondent on payment of certain H 
367 
368 
SllPREME COlJRT REPORTS 
(2006] I S.C.R. 
A sum as consideration amount in terms of a 'release deed' (Exhibit-89). 
Appellant raised claim for his share in the disputed property on the ground 
that he was minor when his share in the property was assigned by his 
mother in favour of the respondent. Respondent filed a suit for permanent 
injunction and also for recovery of possession against the appellant. Trial 
B Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent. The order of the Trial 
Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. 
Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that Exhibit-89, the release deed, was in fact 
an assignment of undivided shares by the members of a 
C Marumakkathayam thavazhi and such an assignment was clearly invalid 
in law and that a transaction of sale of undivided shares was not merely 
voidable but was void in law. 
Respondent submitted that in terms of Exhibit-89, the release deed, 
rights of all the other members of the thavazhi were released in his favour, 
D the only other member of the thavazhi and such a transaction was valid 
in law; that the High Court was justified in holding that the transaction 
Exhibit-89 could also be treated as a partition which again was valid since 
all the members of a thavazhi could always come together and effect a 
partition even under the pristine Marumakkathayam Law and certainly 
E after the coming into force of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act; that 
there was no question of the theory of conflict between right and duty 
arising in this case as the circumstances show that other member/sub-
thavazhi was in need of funds at the relevant time and they had released 
\ 
their rights in the suit property in favour of the respondent for a valuable 
r 
consideration; and that the appellant did not file the suit within the 
F limitation period on attaining the age of majority, thus, there was no 
reason to interfere with the decrees passed in the suits. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD. I.I. There were only six members in the thavazhi at the 
G relevant time. The property belonged to the thavazhi. Five of the members 
of the thavazhi or the group consisting of 'K' and her children together 
released their rights in the property in favour of the only other member 
1--
of the thavazhi, the son of the sister of 'K'. Such a release in favour of 
the thavazhi or of all the other 

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