Marumakkathayam Law: A single woman at the time of partition retains ownership of her property, even if she has children later, according to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that under Marumakkathayam Personal Law, if a woman is single at the time of property division, she keeps the property as her own, even if she later has children. The Court overturned the 1967 Kerala High Court decision in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi regarding this issue. It stated that to form a thavazhi, there must be at least one female and her descendants, either male or female, in the next generation and beyond. The Court also noted that this ruling will apply only to future cases. Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol emphasized that all definitions of thavazhi include the main female and her future generations, meaning at least one female and her descendants are necessary for its formation.
According to Section 3(j)(i) of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, thavazhi refers to a group that includes a female, her children, and all her female-line descendants. The Supreme Court explained that under Mitakshara law, if a member remains joint with his male descendants, his share keeps its coparcenary property status. However, the original defendants argued that the law regarding Marumakkathayam has been misinterpreted. The majority opinion in Mary Cheriyan was reviewed, stating that property received by a woman under Marumakkathayam Law during a partition remains classified as tharwad property. It was explained that a tharwad divides into separate units during partition, with each unit being a thavazhi.
In the case of Mary Cheriyan, the majority opinion highlighted that, unlike Mitakshara law, which has religious elements, Marumakkathayam law is viewed in a secular way. This means that every member of a tharwad, regardless of their status, has a birthright, including rights to property after a partition. The minority opinion disagreed with the majority’s interpretation, stating that the law does not establish a general principle regarding the nature of property in a tharwad after partition. The Supreme Court noted that the majority believes a single female at the time of partition holds the property as part of the tharwad, allowing future members to join through adoption or birth. In contrast, the minority argued that if a female is single at the time of partition, she owns the property individually, even if she later has children. This is because partition changes the property from being jointly owned to being solely hers.
The Court also pointed out that the majority was mistaken in thinking that one single female could create a thavazhi. The Court stated, “For the reasons discussed and others we will address later, we cannot agree with this view.”
The Court supported the minority opinion and stated, “On the other hand, the minority believes that if a woman is single at the time of partition, she retains ownership of the property, even if she later has children. This is because partition fundamentally changes the property from being jointly owned to being solely hers. After careful consideration of both perspectives, we find that the minority has accurately grasped the situation. Partition changes the nature of the property and ownership.” As a result, the Supreme Court rejected the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ramachandran & Ors. v. Vijayan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 885)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR A. Raghunath
Respondents: AOR M. P. Vinod; Advocate Atul Shankar Vinod
