In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the principles of matrilineal inheritance under the Marumakkathayam law, emphasizing that descent and property rights flow through women. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, settled a decades-long dispute over property succession in Kerala, upholding the rights of tharwad (joint family) members to ancestral properties.
The Court dismissed an appeal against concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court that classified the disputed properties as tharwad properties governed by Marumakkathayam law. The decision is seen as a significant reaffirmation of matrilineal inheritance traditions unique to Kerala’s Hindu community.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Ramachandran & Ors. vs. Vijayan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2161/2012), involved properties belonging to the Andipillil Tharwad, a joint family governed by the Marumakkathayam system. The plaintiffs, descendants of Parukutty Amma, sought partition and separate possession of two properties:
1. Item 1: Land gifted by Krishna Menon, later partitioned among tharwad members.
2. Item 2: Property inherited by Parukutty Amma and her children through a mortgage deed executed by her mother-in-law, Parvathy Amma.
The defendants, representing other branches of the tharwad, argued that the properties were individual acquisitions or governed by patrilineal inheritance laws (putravakasam).
The Trial Court and High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the properties as tharwad properties, jointly owned by the tharwad members. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging these rulings.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court identified two primary legal questions:
1. Nature of Partitioned Property Under Marumakkathayam Law:
Does property obtained by a female member through partition retain its tharwad character or become her separate property?
2. Extent of Inheritance Rights:
Could Parvathy Amma lawfully transfer the entirety of Item 2 property to her daughter-in-law, Parukutty Amma, and her descendants, or was her right limited?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court. It ruled that:
1. Item 1 Property:
The property retained its tharwad character as it was collectively inherited by a group of members (thavazhi) of the tharwad. The Court affirmed that the property remained joint family property under Marumakkathayam principles.
2. Item 2 Property:
The Court found that Parvathy Amma had lawfully transferred the property to Parukutty Amma and her children under a mortgage deed. The property was classified as tharwad property inherited by the descendants of Parukutty Amma.
The Supreme Court also clarified that its pronouncements on legal principles would apply prospectively, leaving prior transactions undisturbed.
Observations of the Court
Justice Sanjay Karol, delivering the judgment, provided a detailed analysis of Marumakkathayam law. He highlighted the system’s matrilineal nature, where descent and property inheritance are traced through women. The Court noted:
“A female is a stock of descent while the male is not. Unlike Mitakshara law, which is founded on agnatic (male) lineage, the Marumakkathayam law is based on matriarchate.”
The Court further emphasized that properties held by a group of tharwad members retain their joint family nature unless explicitly partitioned. The judgment rejected the defendants’ argument that the properties in question were co-owned or governed by patrilineal inheritance systems.
