MARUMAKKATHAYAM, ALIYASANTANA & NAMBOODRI SYSTEMS – SALIENT FEATURES.

HINDU LAWCHAPTER-18MARUMAKKATHAYAM, ALIYASANTANA & NAMBOODRI SYSTEMS – SALIENT FEATURES.Marummakathayam Law : This is based on matri-archal system and mother is the stock of ” descent.  The devolution of property is from mother to daughter, daughter to daughter & so on. This female line isTavazhi. The family is called Tarwad. The salient feature of it that there are males & females  from  a  common,    female    ancestor.   The control and management is with the eldest male called “Karnavan”. Marummakathayam : Literally it means devolution of a man’s property to his sister’s children. Customs & usages are the main souces, a part from Hindu Law The basis is secular. There were many Acts-Nair Act, Ezhava  Act, Madras Marummakathayam Act. Etc. All these are abrogated by Hindu Succession Act. Hindu succession Act is applicable to a number of communities like Varriers, Nambiyars, Unnis, Poduvals, Chakkiars etc. living in Travancore, Cochin, Madras etc. Features of Tarwad : It is the Joint family. Tavazhi of a female consists of an ancestress her children and all her descendants in the female line how low-so ever. All have equal rights in tarwad properties, On the death of a person, survivarship applied. This system was abolished by the kerala Joint Family system (Abolition) Act 1971.    – Peddasubbiah v. Akkamma: In this case, a next friend “F” filed a suit for partition on behalf of a minor M, and the question was, whether this could sever the status of the minor from the coparcenery. The Madras High court in such cases had held that there would be severance if it was for the benefit of the minor, from the date of the suit. The Allahabad High court had held that separation would take place on the date of decree of the court. 1. Allahabad decision was no longer good law. 2. when the suit is filed at the instance of the minor, the partition is claimed on the date of the suit, hence, the minor’s share is to be determined on the date of suit. Amarendra Mansingh V.Sanatan singh. The court held:(Lord Bruce.) :                1. The authority of a manager (mother) of a Joint Hindu family, was similar to a guardian of an infant heir.                2. In Hindu Law under exceptional circumstances, transfer may be made for legal necessity, These are:                            (i) Apat-Kale-time of distress,                            (ii) Kutumbartebenefit of family,                            (iii) Dharmarte-pious purposes.                3. “The mother had a.limited and qualified power. It can only be   exercised rightly in case of need and for benefit of the estate”-the court said.                4. The actual pressure on the estate and danger to be averted- are the tests. The objective, terms & conditions and nature of aliena tion should be for legal necessity only. This decision is applied to all cases where property is looked after by person ie, Mutts, Shebait, Guardian, Karta, Truste—etc. Puttarangamma v. Ragamma. In this case B had four daughters (but no son) and he constituted a H.U.F. In 1951 he sent a regd, letter to the coparceners of his unequivocal intention to separate from them. He, on his family friends advice, withdraw his notices . Amicable settlement failed. B filed a suit. The respondents contended;