High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeAppeals dismissed; trial court’s decree stands;...
Muringoli Krishnankutty Nair v. Meethale Mulloli Malu Amma and others
Case / Petition Number:AS Nos. 544 & 545 of 2001
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. B. Suresh Kumar
- Judgment Date
- 2015-08-19
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeals dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s view that Section 17 governs the succession for those who would have been governed by Marumakkattayam, despite abolition, and that the plaintiff’s 1/3 share claim is sustained; the sale to the fourth defendant is not binding to defeat this share. The decision aligns with Chellamma v. Narayana, Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma, and Bhaskaran v. Kalliani Amma, while overruling Saraswathy Amma v. Radhamma.
- Final Disposition
- Appeals dismissed; trial court’s decree stands; the plaintiff’s 1/3 share is recognized under Section 17 for the Marumakkattayam group.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Muringoli Krishnankutty Nair
- Sanish
- Sandeeptha
Respondents
- Meethale Mulloli Malu Amma
- K.T. Chandran
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri G. Unnikrishnan
- • Sri K. Saneesh Kumar
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri G. Gopala Krishnan Nair
- • Sri R. Bindu (Sastamangalam)
- • Sri R. Jayakrishnan
Case Synopsis & Summary
These appeals arise from a suit for partition (O.S. No. 964 of 1996) in the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode, concerning 13.5 cents of plaint schedule property gifted by Radhamma to her daughter. After Radhamma’s death, her husband (first defendant) and children (second and third defendants) allegedly sold the property to the fourth defendant; the plaintiff (Radhamma’s mother) sought a decree declaring a 1/3 share in the property. The trial court held that the property devolved under Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) to Radhamma, and to her two children, applying the Marumakkattayam lineage, since Radhamma would have been governed by that system had the HSA not existed. Consequently, a preliminary decree recognizing the plaintiff’s 1/3 share was passed. The defendants appealed (AS Nos. 544 and 545 of 2001), asserting that Hindu Succession Act Sections 15 and 16 should govern intestate succession, and that Kerala’s abolition of Marumakkattayam law does not permit Section 17 to apply. The High Court concluded that Section 17 provides a separate law of succession for those governed by Marumakkattayam and that abolition did not affect this provision for those born before 1956 and dying later. Citing Chellamma v. Narayana, Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma, and Bhaskaran v. Kalliani Amma, the court upheld the section’s applicability, overruled Saraswathy Amma v. Radhamma, and dismissed the appeals. The trial court’s decree stands, recognizing the plaintiff’s 1/3 share.
Provisions of Law Cited
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 16Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 17 (ii)(a)Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Marumakkattayam Law would have governed certain Hindus if the Hindu Succession Act had not been enacted; Section 17 creates a separate law of succession for that group; Abolition of Marumakkattayam does not affect the application of Section 17 for those individuals who would have been governed by Marumakkattayam prior to 18.6.1956 and who died after 1.12.1976 (as per Chellamma v. Narayana).
- Section 17 provides a preferred mode of succession for the Marumakkattayam group, with devolution to sons, daughters, and mother; this is a special statute distinct from Section 15/16 general rules.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants contended that the intestate succession of Radhamma should be governed by the Hindu Succession Act Sections 15 and 16, not by Section 17. They argued that Marumakkattayam law had already been abolished by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, and that Radhamma died after 3.7.1993, making Section 17 inapplicable. They urged that Ext. B1 sale to the fourth defendant be considered under general succession rules rather than under the Marumakkattayam-specific provision; they relied on prior decisions that these groups would not be governed by Marumakkattayam post-abolition and sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents supported Section 17 as applicable to Radhamma’s line of succession, arguing that Section 17 creates a separate law for those who would have been Marumakkattayam subjects and that abolition cannot erase this special rule for those living before the abolition act. They maintained that the trial court’s finding of devolution under Section 17 should stand and that the plaintiff’s 1/3 share claim be adjudicated accordingly, with Ext. B1 not binding against the defendants in law.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chellamma v. Narayana | AIR 1993 Kerala 146 (FB) | Positive | Larger bench decision outlining Section 17 governs MarumakkattayamGroup succession and not affected by abolition. |
| Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma | (1988) 2 Ker.LT 964 | Positive | Court approved this decision in support of Section 17 governing Marumakkattayam linked groups. |
| Bhaskaran v. Kalliani | (1990) 2 Ker.LT 749 | Positive | Division Bench decision approved by High Court as consistent with Section 17 application. |
| Saraswathy Amma v. Radhamma | (1990) 2 Ker.LT 183; AIR 1991 Kerala 86 | Overruled | Observations contrary to the present decision were overruled. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Muringoli Krishnankutty Nair v. Meethale Mulloli Malu Amma and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR**
## **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/28TH SRAVANA, 1937**
**AS.No. 544 of 2001**
**--------------------------**
## **OS 964/1996 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I**
**--------------------------**
## **APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1-3:**
**--------------------------------------------------**
**1. MURINGOLI KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PARVATHY AMMA, KOTTAYADATH HOUSE NO.37/1349, KARUVASSERY, P.O.MALIKKADAVE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
**2. SANISH, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KOTTAYADATH HOUSE NO.37/1349, KARUVASSERY, P.O.MALIKKADAVE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
**3. SANDEEPTHA, AGED 14 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KOTTAYADATH HOUSE NO.37/1349, KARUVASSERY, P.O.MALIKKADAVE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.**
**(APPELLANTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN FATHER FIRST APPELLANT).**
**BY ADVS.SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR**
## **RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF ADD 4TH DEFENDANT:**
**-------------------------------------------------------------------------**
**1. * MEETHELE MULLOLI MALU AMMA, AGED 84 YEARS, D/O.THAYIKUTTY AMMA, MEETHALE MULLOLI, KARUVASSERI, P.O.MALIKKADAVE, KOZHIKODE TALUK.**
- **DEAD APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE THE LRS OF THE DECEASED R1 RECORDED AS PER IA 3257/99 DT.1/10/99.**
## **2. K.T.CHANDRAN, S/O.APPUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, PULIYATHAVIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUVASSERY, KOZHIKODE TALUK.**
**R,R BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR R,R BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) R,R BY ADV. SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN**
**THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/6/2015 ALONG WITH AS. 545/2001, THE COURT ON 19-08-2015, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**PJ**
## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.**
**= = = = = = = = = = = = = =**
## **A.S.Nos.544 & 545 of 2001**
**= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19[th] day of August, 2015.**
## **J U D G M E N T**
These appeals are preferred against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.964 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kozhikkode. Among the appeals, A.S.No.544 of 2001 is by defendants 1 to 3 and A.S.No.545 of 2001 is by the fourth defendant. Originally, these appeals were preferred before the District Court, Kozhikode and the same were withdrawn to this Court and renumbered as per the order in C.M.P.No.956 of 2001 in S.A.No.208 of 2001.
2. The first defendant is the husband of the deceased daughter of the plaintiff namely, Radhamma. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children of Radhamma. The fourth defendant is the transferee of the plaint schedule property from defendants 1 to 3. The plaint schedule
2
## **AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
property measuring 13.5 cents belonged to the plaintiff. She gifted the plaint schedule property to Radhamma on 9.4.1980. Radhamma died on 3.7.1993. After the death of Radhamma, defendants 1 to 3 sold the plaint schedule property as per Ext.B1 document to the fourth defendant on 5.3.1996. The suit was filed thereafter seeking a decree of partition, alleging that on the death of Radhamma, 1/3[rd] right over the plaint schedule property devolved on the plaintiff. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that Ext.B1 sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant is void and not binding on the plaintiff.
3. Defendants 1 to 3 and the fourth defendant filed separate written statements. The essence of the contention raised by the defendants was that on the death of Radhamma the plaint schedule property devolved on defendants 1 to 3, who are her husband and children as provided for under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and that Ext.B1 deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in
**AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
**==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
favour of the fourth defendant is valid and binding on the plaint schedule property.
4. The court below, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found that succession of properties in relation to Radhamma would have been governed by the Marumakkattayam Law, if the Hindu Succession Act had not been passed, and therefore, on the death of Radhamma the plaint schedule property devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 as provided for under Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act. The court below also found that Ext.B1 is not binding on the plaintiff. Consequently, a preliminary decree declaring the 1/3[rd] of the right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property was passed. As noticed above, defendants 1 to 3 as also the fourth defendant are aggrieved by the said decision and hence these appeals.
5. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
6. The short question that falls for consideration
4
## **AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
in this appeal is as to the provision of law governing intestate succession of the deceased Radhamma. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act prescribes the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. Section 15(i)(a) of the said Act provides that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters and the husband. Section 16 of the Act provides that among the heirs specified in sub-section (i) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry. As such, if Section 15 is applied in the case of Radhamma, the case of defendants is to be accepted. But, Section 17 of the said Act provides for a different mode of succession for those female Hindus who would have been governed by the Marumakkattayam Law, if the Hindu Succession Act had not been passed. Section 17 (ii)(a) provides that their properties would devolve firstly on sons and daughters and mother. It is thus clear that if Section 17 is applied in the case of Radhamma, the case of
**AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
5
the plaintiff has to be accepted. Radhamma was a Hindu - Nair who would have been governed by the Marumakkattayam Law, if the Hindu Succession Act had not been passed, is a fact which is not in dispute. As such, the decision of the court below that Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act was the provision governing intestate succession in the case of Radhamma is in order.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that since Marumakkattayam Law had already been abolished by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 and since Radhamma died after the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 on 3.7.1993, Section 17 cannot be applied in her case. It is seen that a larger Bench of this Court had considered the very same contention in _**Chellamma v. Narayana**_ [AIR 1993 Kerala 146 (FB)]. It was held by this Court in that case that what is provided for under Section 17 of the Act is a separate law of succession
**AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
6
for a group of persons mentioned in the section namely persons who would have been governed by the Marumakkattayam Law, if the Hindu Succession Act had not been passed and therefore, the Law of Succession as far as the said persons are concerned, is not affected by the abolition of the Marumakkattayam system of Law by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. It was also held by this Court in that case that all those persons who would have been governed by Marumakkattayam Law, if Hindu Succession Act had not been passed, except those who were born after the introduction of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, are governed by Section 17 of the Act. Paragraph 50 of the said decision reads thus:
“We may finally summarise as follows:
(1) Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will govern the law of succession on the death of males or females who were governed by the Marumakkathayam system if such persons were-
**AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
7
(i) living as on 18.6.1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and they died before 1.12.1976 when the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into force.
(ii) living as on 18.6.1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and who died on or after 1.12.1976 when the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into force.
(iii) born on or after 18.6.1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force and who died before 1.12.1976 when the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into force, and
(iv) born on or after 18.6.1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force but before 1.12.1976 came into force but before 1.12.1976 and who died on or after .12.1976 when the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into force.
(2) Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will not, however, govern the law of succession of males or females if such persons were born on or after 1.12.1976 and died thereafter. Succession to them would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 other than the provisions applicable to those governed by the Marumakkathayam system.
(3) We approve the decision of the learned single Judge in
8
## **AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
Madhavi Amma v. Kalliani Amma, (1988 2 Ker.LT 964 and of the Division Bench in Bhaskaran v. Kalliani (1990 2 Ker.LT 749. We overrule the observations to the contrary in Saraswathy Amma v. Radhamma, (1990 2 Ker.LT 183 : (AIR 1991 Kerala 86).”
It is beyond dispute that Radhamma was a person born before the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. As such, the argument raised by the learned counsel is only to be rejected.
In the result, there is no merits in these appeals and are accordingly dismissed.
_**Sd/-**_
**P.B.SURESH KUMAR,**
**(JUDGE)**
_**Kvs/-**_
_**PA TO JUDGE**_
_**// true copy //**_
## **AS.Nos.544 & 545/2001.**
9