RAMACHANDRAN & ORS. versus VIJAYAN & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 22-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1013 : 2024 INSC 885
Ramachandran & Ors.
v.
Vijayan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2161 of 2012)
22 November 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose with respect to the devolution of property by way of 
Marumakkathayam law. Nature and character of the scheduled 
properties. Whether the property obtained by a female and her 
children after partition would be considered their separate property 
or would it belong to her tharwad; whether, in the present facts, 
‘PA’ had the legal right to transfer the entire property of her son 
to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by way of a mortgage 
deed or was her right only limited to one-sixth of the property as 
contended by the original defendants.
Headnotes†
Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 – ss.3(j)(i), 38 – 
‘thavazhi’ – The Travancore Nayar Regulation, II of 1100 – 
s.2(3) – Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113 – Parties governed 
by the Marumakkathayam law – Right of marumakkathayee 
female on partition – Whether the property obtained by a 
female and her children after partition would be considered 
their separate property or would it belong to her tharwad 
(a Marumakkathayam joint family comprising of a female 
ancestor, her children, her daughter’s children, her daughter’s 
daughter’s children and all such other descendants, however 
remote, in the female line):
Held: The minority opinion of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court 
in Mary Cheriyan case correctly holds that if at the time of partition 
the female is single, she continues to hold the property as her own, 
even if she has children in the future – Partition alters the nature 
of the property from, at one point being jointly held property or 
tharwad to a property held solely by her – In order for a thavazhi 
(branches of tharwad) to be formed, there has to be at least one 
female and her successive generation, either male or female, in 
*Author
1014
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the generation immediately succeeding and thereafter progeny 
of the female line – The majority view in Mary Cheriyan falters 
for in their understanding one single female is sufficient to form a 
thavazhi – ‘PA’ and her descendants formed a thavazhi and had 
received the scheduled properties under item No.1 collectively (two 
sets of scheduled properties being item No.1 and item No.2) – 
Further, the divergence of opinion between the minority and majority 
was in respect of single female(s) receiving property in partition 
which is not the case here – All five Judges were ad idem when 
it comes to property being received at partition by females and 
members of her thavazhi – Since the properties were received 
by the thavazhi and not by a woman who is single, the property 
is unquestionably tharwad property – The fact that branch 5 (‘PA’ 
and her children) held the property jointly is supported by the fact 
that the compromise deed, which granted them the said property, 
was never challenged – The appointment of one of the sons of ‘PA’ 
as karanavan also manifests the intention that the parties wished 
to jointly hold the property as tharwad – The original defendants’ 
reliance on the minority view is thus, misplaced as the difference 
of opinion was only with respect to inheritance by single females 
and not thavazhis – Though on the point of law, the minority view 
of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mary Cheriyan case 
is upheld, on facts, the finding about which all five judges were 
ad idem applies – The pronouncement of law in this judgment to 
apply prospectively – Preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court 
and upheld by the High Court affirmed. [Paras 32, 43, 45-47, 58]
Marumakkathayam law – Devolution of property – Whether, in 
the present facts, ‘PA’ had the legal right to transfer the entire 
property of her son to her daughter-in-law and grandchildren by 
way of a mortgage deed or was her right only limited to one-sixth 
of the property as contended by the original defendants:
Held: ‘PA’, after the death of her son ‘P’, received the property in 
her own right – Apart from a few transactions, no other evidence 
was placed on record to prove that property was Putravakasha and 
not Marumakkathayam - ‘PA’ executed the mortgage deed in favour 
of her daughter-in-law and her minor children – The possession 
was given to the mortgagee and it was never redeemed – Trial 
Court held that as per the evidence on record the plaint schedule 
second item pro

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