JALAJA SHEDTHI & ORS. versus LAKSHMI SHEDTHI & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 20-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
707 
A 
JALAJA SHEDTHI & ORS. 
v. 
LAKSHMI SHEDTHI & ORS. 
September 20, 1973 
(P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
B 
Aliyasantana Act (Madras Act IX .of 1949}, Sections 3(b), (i), (ii), 3(c), 
3(/), 3(/z), 35, 36 and 39-Hindu Secession Act, XXX of 1956, sections 3(a), 
4(1 ), 6, 7(2), 8, 10, 15, 17, 23 and 30-Meaning of 'Kararu', 'Kummba', 
'nil.~amhathi kamru', and 'Santhathi kavaru' under Madras Act-Concept of 
inheritance is t!rrough female-Partition-Share of a kavaru is ascertairutd on 
dale of claim-Kal'aru in relation to its undh·ided interest is kavaru Utlder CID-
tomary Aliyasantana law or Madras Act-Succession Act does not enlarge life 
interest of male under Aliyasantana law into absolute interest. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Prior to the Hindu Seccession Act, 1956, the parties were governed by the 
Aliyasantana Jaw. The customary Aliyasantana law was known by two different 
names, namely marumakattayam and aliyasantana which literally connotes inhe-
ritance in the line of nephews' or sisters' sons respectively. The basic principle 
underlying the joint famtly composition, otherwise known as kutumba or tarwad, 
is the matriarchal system, in which devolution is through females. 
A kutumba 
under the customary Aliyasantana law was a family corporation; every member, 
male or female, born in it has equal rights in the property owned by it. 
On tile 
death of any member of the kutumba, his or her interest in the kutumba property 
Jevolved on the remaining mt:mbers by survivorship. 
Partition could be effected 
on1y at the instance of all the adult members. The children of the female mem· 
bers alone were the coparceners in the kutumba, but not the wife and children 
of the male members. The Madras· Aliyasantana Act, 1949, defined and amend· 
ed in certain respects the customary Aliyasantana laws relating to, inter alia, 
intestate succession and partition and in other respects saved the prevailing laws. 
Thereafter, the Hindu Secession Act, 1956, came into operation whereby tho 
antecedent Hindu Law ceased to have effect to the extent that it was either pro· 
vided for or was inconsistent with the Act. 
The first appellant and the other appellants are the widow and sons respectively 
of C, while the first respondent and the other respondents are C's sister and her 
scns respectively. C executed a will on January 15, 1957 bequeathing his interest 
in favour of the. appellants. 
On January 25, 1957, the respondents issued 
a 
notice to C stating that he was the manager of the undivided family, that he was 
a nissanthathi kavaru while the respondents were santhathi kavaurs, as such there 
were only two kavarus and that they had decided to divide the properties between 
C and themselves. 
They, therefore, demanded under the Madras Act a share 
belonging to their kavaru from out of the entire movable and immovable pro-
perties of the family. 
C replied on January 24, 1957, stating that the respon-
denh· family was not a santhathi k:avant but a nissanthathi kavaru as the first 
respondent was mere than fifty years old on the date of th~ said notice and had 
!10 female issue. 
He admitted, however, that there are only two kavarus in the 
family, and as both the kavarus were nissanthathi kavarus, each kavaru was 
entitled to a absolut;: share in the kutumba properties. 
He also stated that he 
bad no objection to the claim for partition made by the respondents and was 
. prepared to effect it provided the respondents cooperated. 
C subsequently died 
on February 13, 1957, after the coming into force of the Succession Act. On 
March 23,1957, t~e a!? Dell ants gave a notice to. the responde~ts claiming a sepa-
rate ~hare under C s wtll. 
The respondents replied to the nouce on the same day 
denymg that the appellants had any share because accordinu to them C was entitl· 
ed only to a life interest under the Aliyasantana law. 
r 
The • ~ppellants·plaintitis t~en filed ~ suit against the 
respondents-defendants 
for partthon, separate po~sesston of their 7 /20th. share of the suit properties and 
for. mesne profits .. The tna! COJ.!rt decreed the smt but the High Court dismissed. 
In appea.l by specral leav~ to thts Court, t~e questions that arose for consideration 
w~re : (1) ~hether the nghts of the parties are to be determined in accordance 
wtth the Ahyasantana law or under the Succession Act; ·(ii) what interest c had, 
708 
!l:PR:El\1E COURT RF.PORTS 
[ 1974 J 1 s.c.R. 
under the .l\Iadras Act, in the joint fami

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