Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The 4th defendant in para. 2 of his written statement denies that the plaintiffs are the heirs and plead the custom as follows:

The parties belong to Nattu Idayar alias Ramayana Chavadi Idayar Community and according to long-established custom of the said caste, widows do not inherit their husbands' property but are entitled only to a small perquisite, the succession, in the absence of a son opening to the nearest male dayadi and according to the said custom of the caste, it is this defendant that has succeeded to the estate of the deceased and plaintiffs as excluded from succession, are not entitled to the plaint properties.

7. In Suit No. 21 of 1917 which was filed by the 4th defendant in Suit No. 64 against his nephews who are defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in that suit, the custom is pleaded as follows in paras. 6 and 7 of the plaint. Paragraph 6 runs as follows : "Both the parties belong to the Yadhava caste of the class of Madura Ramayana Chavadi Edayars otherwise known as Nattidayars residing in land about Madura. The custom that has long been in vogue among the said community is that in ease an original ancestor dies without male issue his widow or daughters do not succeed to his properties by right of succession. According to the custom long prevailing among the said castemen, the widows should only leave the house on receiving the aruppucooli due to them, viz., 100 sheep, or Rs. 100 in case there are no sheep, and they have no manner of right to the properties of the original ancestor." Paragraph 7 runs as follows; "Moreover no right accrues, to his daughters or their heirs by right of heirship in the properties of the person dying without male issue, according to the custom obtaining in the said community. If a person dies without male issue as stated above, only his brother and other near dayadis succeed to his properties as his heirs and claimants. This custom has been in existence for a long time." The defendants in this suit denied the validity of the custom as stated in the plaint and pleaded the custom in para. 4 of their written statement which is the same as the custom they set up in the written statement in the suit filed by the widows and which, therefore, I need not repeat.

10. It is admitted that the parties belong to the Yadhava or Shepherd community. They form a sub-division of that sect and are known as the Madura Ramayana Chavadi 1,000 Yadhavas who reside chiefly in the town of Madura and about 56 adjoining villages. Thought the community is known as 1,000 Yadhavas probably meaning that originally there were 1,000 families, the evidence is that there are about 700 families now constituting the community. This community is again subdivided into three sub-sects, viz., Puthunattu Edayars, Sivikara Edayars and A Edayars. Although all these three sub-sects go by the name of the Madura Ramayana Chavadi 1,000 Yadhavas and although they all contribute to the caste panchayat which is situate in a place called Ramayana Chavadi in Madura and although all these three sub sects are within the jurisdiction of this caste panchayat which settles their caste affairs, inter-marriage between them is prohibited. The panchayat consists of a manager called Nattamakkar and 24 Pattikars or members of the panchayat. This community claims to belong to the larger community called the Yadhavas or the Shepherd community.

51. The parties to the appeals are a sub-division of Shepherds called Pothunattu Edayars or Ramayana Chavadi Yadhavas. They are also called one thousand shepherds and they number about 700 families. The custom by which sonless widows are excluded from inheritance is said to obtain among this Ramayana Chavadi Yadhavas. In giving evidence, the defendants' witnesses depose that the widows get what is known as aruppucooli or kaimpenkur of 100 sheep or 100 rupees and quit the house of their husbands. If the payment of kaimpenkur or aruppucooli is a part and parcel of the custom which excludes widows from their husbands' inheritance, I may say at once that the custom has not been made out; for, the evidence as to the amount, time and mode of payment of aruppucooli is so conflicting and unsatisfactory that it is not possible to arrive at any definite decision as to its amount or the time or mode of payment. Even though the witnesses treat the payment of aruppucooli as part of the custom and inseparable from the portion relating to the exclusion of the widows from inheritance, yet, as the defendants should not be made to suffer on account of the attempt of the witnesses to prove too much, I addressed myself to the simple question, have the defendants made out by reliable and unambiguous evidence a custom, which is invariable and obligatory where by widows are debarred from inheriting their husbands' property? The appellants seek to establish the custom by adducing a number of instances in which the property, of a person dying without male issue was inherited not by the widows but by the agnates or pangalis. The instances may be roughly classified under the following heads: