T. MADHAVA KURUP versus T.C. MADHAVA KURUP (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T. MADHA VA KURUP 
v. 
T.C. MAD HA VA KURUP (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2006 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Customary Law: 
Succession-In respect of 'Tavazhi' properties in the State of Kerala-
C After death of last female member of the 'Tavazhi'- Held: The 'Tavazhi' itself 
would come to an end, since in absence of a female member a 'Tavazhi' 
cannot be continued by male members alone-Surviving male members of the 
'Tavazhi' would inherit the 'Tavazhi' properties as co-owners-Rule of 
survivorship would cease to operate hence last surviving male member cannot 
D claim it as his absolute property-Consequently, suit for partition in respect 
of the 'Tavazhi' properties by heirs of the male member, who pre-deceased the 
last surviving male member, maintainable-Partition. 
The properties in question in the present appeal were 'Tavazhi' 
properties. The 'Tavazhi' consisted of one female member and two male 
E members. The female member died. Thereafter the two male members also 
died one after the other. 
F 
Subsequently, heirs of the male member, who pre-deceased the last 
surviving male member filed a suit for partition in respect of the 'Tavazhi' 
properties. Trial Court decreed the suit. 
On appeal, High Court set aside the decree holding that the 'Tavazhi' 
continued to exist despite death of the last female member, that the last 
surviving male member of the 'Tavazhi' took it as absolute property and that 
heirs of the male member, who pre-deceased the last surviving male member, 
acquired no right in the suit properties and could not, therefore, maintain a 
G suit for partition and separate possession. 
H 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether the suit properties being 'Tavazhi' properties devolved on the two 
surviving male members of the 'Tavazhi' after the death of the last female 
908 
T.MADHAVAKURUPv. T.C.MADHAVAKURUP(D)BYLRS. 
909 
member as co-owners, or whether the suit properties devolved upon the last A 
surviving male member by survivorship, who acquired the same as his absolute 
property. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. After the death of last female member of the Tavazhi, the B 
Tavazhi itself came to an end and the surviving male members took the Tavazhi 
properties as co-owners. [912-G] 
1.2. The High Court observed that the question which arose for 
consideration in Balachandran's case* related to devolution of self acquired 
property of a Marumakkathayi female, and not in relation to Tavazhi property, C 
and the question whether the tarwad can consist of only two male members 
did not expressly arise for consideration. It further drew support from _the 
decision of this Court in Gowli Buddanna's case** wherein in the context of 
the Income Tax Act, it was observed that under Hindu Law a joint family may 
consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. D 
Inferentially, the High Court concluded that under the Marumakkathayam 
Law as well, a single male member could constitute a tarwad. In doing so, the 
High Court lost sight of the vital distinction between the two that while under 
the Hindu Law descent is traced through males, in the Marumakkathayam 
system of inheritance, it is traced through females. In the case of a Hindu 
Joint Family a single male coparcener may continue the coparcenary with E 
his sons who may be born later, but in the absence of a female member a 
Tavazhi cannot be continued by male members alone. The comparison is, 
therefore, not apposite. Different considerations may arise if the sole surviving 
member of the Tavazhi is a female. [914-D-G) 
1.3. If the descent is traceable only through females, in the absence of F 
a female member, the Tavazhi must come to an end with no chance of there 
being a female member to continue the line. The rule of survivorship in such 
circumstances ceases to operate and the surviving male members, in the 
absence of a Tavazhi, must inherit the property as tenants in common, and 
share it equally. (914-H; 915-A) 
G 
1.4. Resultantly, the judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside 
and that of the Trial Court decreeing the partition suit restored. (915-B) 
* Ba/achandran v. Sankaran Nair, (1985) KLT 459, approved. 
H 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Thiruthipalli Raman Menon and Ors. v. Variangattil Palisseri Raman 
B 
Menon, ILR 24 (1901) Madras 73 and Alami v. Kamu and Anr., ILR 12 (1889) 
Madras 126, distinguished 
Krishnan v. Damod

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