KALLYANI versus NARAYANAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1130 · Decided: 27-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

c 
'D 
·E 
F 
1130 
KALLYANI 
v. 
NARAYANAN AND ORS. 
February 27, 1980 
[V. D. TULZAPURKAR, D. A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Maru111akkatayan1 Law-Property ancestral and of joint ftanilv-Will exe-
cuted by a testator would be ineffective as he had no power or 
~uthority to 
dispose of by will ancestral properties in Ids hand. 
Partition n1eaning of-Hindu Law-Effect of partition under Hindu AJitakshara 
Law-A Hindu father has the po1ver to partition the joint fan1ily property ·which 
includes the di.\Tuption of joint fa1nily status. 
One Karappan son of Chulliparambil Krishnan had two wives Naini tm.d 
1'onni. 
Through 
bis 
first 'vife Naini he had four 
sons-Kric;hnan (D1), 
Shankaran (D2), Raman and the husband of plaintiff appellant Kallyani who 
died after him at1d Madhavan \Vho• predeceased him and husband of D3 and 
father of D4, D5 and D6-and four daughters. 
Ile had one son by name 
Kesavan and two drlughters, through his second wife Ponni. 
One \'aHi! \\'as 
the second wife of his father and she had three daughters. 
Karappa·n and' his 
family are Ezhavas and in the matter of inheritance, succession and oo the 
question of personal !a\V they \Vere governed essentially by customary law and 
in the a-bsence of any specific custom, they are governed by the Hindu, Mitak-
shara law. Karappan executed. a registered deed variously described as a will 
or a deed of partition or evidencing family arrangement, Ex. Pl dated January 
25, 1910. In this deed after na.rrating his near relations including his two wives 
male and fema1e children born to each and his father's second \1.-ife and her 
children, he described the manner in which the A, B and C scheduled properties 
should be taken by them. after his death. 
In February 1910 Karappan died. 
Raman, the husb~nd of the plaintiff appellant, the third son of the first wife 
died on February 20, 1936. Plaintiff widow of Raman sued for partition and 
separate possession of her undivided !t11 share in properties set out in A, B 
and C schedules to the plaint. 
The Trial Court held tlrnt Ext. Pl had the 
effect of constituting a coparcenary of four brothers, sons of first 
wife 
of 
Ka·rappan and that it was their joint family property and they did not hold as 
tenants-in-common but as joint tenants and were governed by survivorship in 
the matter of succCssion. The contention that even in such a situation the widow 
wou1d be entitled to her husband's share. becau'ie'· of a customary right was 
negatived. In respect of B & C schedule properties, it ·was held that they 
belonged exclusively to defendant 1 and his wife a11d plaintiff c<lnnot claim 
a share in them. 
The High Court affirmed the Trial . Court':s judg1nent and 
decree treating Ex. Pl as family arrangement and hence the plaintiff's appeal 
by certificate. 
Allo\ving the appeal, the Court 
'B 
HELD: 1. Ext. PL siyled as a will by the deceased Karappan is not 
effective as a wi11. 
If by Ext. P-1 deceased Karappan atten1pted tc make a 
\Vill of the ancestral property in his hand in \vhich his sons had ncquired 
.. ~ 
• 
-\ 
KALLYANI v. NARAYANAN 
1 I 3 I 
·interest by birth, obviously he had no power to make a will in respect of 
such property. Ex. Pl does not purport to devise by will the undivided share 
of btator Karappan in the jo_int family property, but he attempts to dispose 
of by a will all the properties in which his sons had interest by birth. He 
had not claimed any share in the property but claimed a right to deal with 
ancestral property as he desired. 
Jn Ex. Pl itself he describes properties set 
eut in schedules A and B annexed to Ex. Pl as his tarvad properties. [1139B-
C] 
2. Expression "tarvad" in Marumakkattayam law is. the narne given to the 
joint family consisting of 1nales and females, a.II dcsca1dants in the female line 
from a .common ancestress. 
A tarvad may consist of two or more branches 
kncw.n as 'Thavazhies', each tavazhi or brooch consisting of one of the female 
members of the tarvad and her descendant~ in the. female line. 
Thus when 
property is described as tarvacl p1~operty in a broad sense it is admitted to be 
joint family. 
This also becomes. clear from the recital in Ex. P.1 that properties 
seL out in A and B schedules \Vere tarvad pr0pertics and property in C schedule 
were claimed by him as his self~acquired properties and they were 
to be 
kept joint and were not sought to be dealt with by Ex. Pl. Therefore, to the 
extent Ex. Pl purports to dispose of an ancestral 

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