PADMAVATHY AMMA versus AMMUNNI PANICKER AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 02-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PADMAVATHY AMMA 
v. 
AMMUNNI PANICKER AND ANR. 
MAY 2, 1995 
[R.M. SAHA! AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.j 
Hindu Law: 
Mantmakkathayam Act: Section 48. 
Travancore Nair Act: Section 22. 
Gift by brother to siste,-Parties governed by Marumakkathayam 
Law-Held: children of donee sister are also entitled to share. 
D 
P made a gift of property in favour of his sister K who was having 
two sons and a daughter. The parties were governed by Marumak· 
kathayam Law. Respondent No. 1, son of K, filed a suit claiming one third 
share in the gifted property but the Trial Court dismissed the same. On 
appeal the High Court held that (i) as the gift was to a female it should 
be presumed, In the absence of the contrary intention, that it was to be 
E held by the donee as tenancy-in-common; there cannot be any Tavazhi 
excluding the male members so notwithstanding the exclusion of male 
members, plaintiff-Respondent-1 was entitled to claim a share as a mem· 
her of Tavazhl. As K's daughter was alive at the time of gift the High Court 
held that K was entitled to half of the gifted properties. Further as K was 
F having one daughter and two sons, the plaintiff-respondent was held 
entitled to one-third of the half share i.e. one sixth of the whole. 
G 
In appeal to this Court on the question whether the gift was for the 
benefit of K alone or to her Tavazbi, 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In Marumakkathayam system of law succession to 
property is traced through females, though the expression Marumak· 
katbayam strictly means inheritance by sister's children. It is because of 
this that a man's heirs are not bis sons and daughters, but his sisters and 
H their children • the mother forming the stock of descent and inheritance 
1056 
t 
I 
_j 
P ADMAV ATHY AMMA v. AMMUNNI P AN!CKER [HANSARIA, J.] 1057 
being traced through mother to daughter, daughter's daughter and so on. A 
A Marnmakkathayam family is known a Tarwad and consists of a group 
of persons, males and females, all tracing descent from a common an· 
cestress. An ordinary Tarawad consists of the mother, her children, male 
and female, the children of such females and their descendants in the 
female line, how-low-soever, living under the control and direction of the B 
Karnavan, who is the eldest male member. Thus there is no doubt that 
under the gift in question, even if the same be construed to have been only 
for the benefit of K all her three children had equal interest in the 
property. The High Court was, therefore, right ii! decreeing the suit of the 
plaintiff to one-sixth share of the suit property. (1059-C·D, 1061-E] 
KK Kochuni v. State of Madras, [1960] 3 SCR 887, relied on. 
M.P. Kunhamina v. M.P. Kunhambi, I.L.R. 32 Mad. 315, distin· 
guished. 
c 
KM. Kutty v. N.P. Ayissa, ILR 51 Mad. 574; Kunnacna Umma v. Kutti D 
Mammi Hajee, I.L.R. 16 Mad. 201 andA.K Haji v. l.P.Bi, (1958] K.L.T. 815, 
referred to. 
M.P. Jospen, The Principles of Marumakkathayam Law, pages 1 and 
2; Mayne's Hindu Law pages 1188 and 1189, 12th edn; KS. Variar, 
Marumakkathayam and Allied System of Law in the Kera/a State, page 91, E 
1st edn. (1969), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5259 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.89 of the Kerala High 
Court in AS.No. 247 of 1987. 
G. Viswanath Iyar and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant. 
P.S. Poti and Ms. Nalini Poduval for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HANSARIA, J. This appeal by special leave requires determination 
of the question as to whether the gift of the suit property by Padmanabha 
F 
G 
in favour of his sister was to the Tavazhi of the sister or was for the benefit H 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A of the sister alone. The parties being governed by Maruma'kkathayam Law, 
to answer the question, we shall have to refer to that law and ascertain the 
intention of the donor as reflected in the gift (which was brought on record 
in the trial court as Ext. A-1); and then decide whether the gift to 
Kochukuni has to anure to her benefit alone or to her Tavazhi. 
B 
2. Respondent No. 1 filed the suit at hand claiming one-third share 
in the gifted property as a son of Kochukunhi, who had another son and a 
daughter. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court 
held that the plaintiff was entitled to one-sixth share and remanded the 
case to the trial court for fresh disposal after answering all the other issues 
C in the

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