Mohanan vs Unknown on 20 March, 2012
25. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I do not find any
reason to doubt the correctness of the majority view in Chellamma
Kamalamma v. Narayana Pillai (supra).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.51 seconds)Documents citing
Chellamma Kamalamma And Ors. vs Narayana Pillai Prabhakaran Nair on 17 December, 1992
J.Saraswathy Amm vs N.Sreedharan Nair on 6 April, 2010
15. As noticed earlier, the Kerala Joint Hindu Family
System (Abolition) Act, 1976 came into force on 1.12.1976. With the
enactment and coming into force of the said Act, the
Marumakkathayam law stood totally abolished by virtue of the
provisions contained in section 7 thereof as held by a Larger Bench of
this Court in Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana Pillai (1993 (1)
KLT 174). However, the Larger Bench held that section 17 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 would continue to operate notwithstanding the
abolition of the Marumakkathayam law. We accordingly hold that on
the death of late Parameswaran Pillai Krishna Pillai, the last registered
holder on 2.1.1981, his wife and children who constitute Class I heirs
under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act became entitled to apply
for transfer of the holding in their favour. We therefore reverse the
finding of the learned single Judge that on the death of late
Parameswaran Pillai Krishna Pillai on 2.1.1981, the first respondent/
petitioner was entitled to have the holding transferred to him as
provided under rule 10 of the Viruthi Rules, 1945.
M.D.Varadarajan vs G.Sureshkumar on 7 January, 2008
4. The question as to whether Section 17 of the Hindu Succession
Act was impliedly repealed by the provisions contained in the Joint Hindu
Family System (Abolition) Act or there is any repugnancy came up for
consideration before this Court in Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana
Pillai (1993 (1) KLT 174 (FB)). A Full Bench of 5 Judges after referring
to various provisions under the related enactments and after a brief survey
of the changes made in the Marumakkathayam system of inheritance with
particular reference to the facts of those case held that Section 17 of the
-9-
R.F.A.No.605/2004
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 made separate provision in relation to
succession on the death of males or females who would have been
governed by the Marumakkathayam law, if the Hindu Succession Act has
not been passed. So far as succession to females are concerned, Section 17
states that provisions of Section 15 relating to succession to female will
have to be applied in the manner in Section 17(ii). Thus, Section 17 of the
Hindu Succession Act and other sections brought about changes in the
law of succession mentioned in the Travancore Nair Act and other matters
relating to succession to males or females, who died after the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act governed by the
Marumakkathayam Law of succession as specified in the Travancore Nair
Act. The question is as to whether the general changes made in the
Marumakkathayam system of inheritance by Hindu Succession Act more
particularly Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act was intended to be
trenched upon by the Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act.
M.D.Varadarajan vs G.Sureshkumar on 7 January, 2008
4. The question as to whether Section 17 of the Hindu Succession
Act was impliedly repealed by the provisions contained in the Joint Hindu
Family System (Abolition) Act or there is any repugnancy came up for
consideration before this Court in Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana
Pillai (1993 (1) KLT 174 (FB)). A Full Bench of 5 Judges after referring
to various provisions under the related enactments and after a brief survey
of the changes made in the Marumakkathayam system of inheritance with
particular reference to the facts of those case held that Section 17 of the
-9-
R.F.A.No.605/2004
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 made separate provision in relation to
succession on the death of males or females who would have been
governed by the Marumakkathayam law, if the Hindu Succession Act has
not been passed. So far as succession to females are concerned, Section 17
states that provisions of Section 15 relating to succession to female will
have to be applied in the manner in Section 17(ii). Thus, Section 17 of the
Hindu Succession Act and other sections brought about changes in the
law of succession mentioned in the Travancore Nair Act and other matters
relating to succession to males or females, who died after the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act governed by the
Marumakkathayam Law of succession as specified in the Travancore Nair
Act. The question is as to whether the general changes made in the
Marumakkathayam system of inheritance by Hindu Succession Act more
particularly Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act was intended to be
trenched upon by the Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act.
M.D.Varadarajan vs G.Sureshkumar on 7 January, 2008
4. The question as to whether Section 17 of the Hindu Succession
Act was impliedly repealed by the provisions contained in the Joint Hindu
Family System (Abolition) Act or there is any repugnancy came up for
consideration before this Court in Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana
Pillai (1993 (1) KLT 174 (FB)). A Full Bench of 5 Judges after referring
to various provisions under the related enactments and after a brief survey
of the changes made in the Marumakkathayam system of inheritance with
particular reference to the facts of those case held that Section 17 of the
-9-
R.F.A.No.605/2004
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 made separate provision in relation to
succession on the death of males or females who would have been
governed by the Marumakkathayam law, if the Hindu Succession Act has
not been passed. So far as succession to females are concerned, Section 17
states that provisions of Section 15 relating to succession to female will
have to be applied in the manner in Section 17(ii). Thus, Section 17 of the
Hindu Succession Act and other sections brought about changes in the
law of succession mentioned in the Travancore Nair Act and other matters
relating to succession to males or females, who died after the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act governed by the
Marumakkathayam Law of succession as specified in the Travancore Nair
Act. The question is as to whether the general changes made in the
Marumakkathayam system of inheritance by Hindu Succession Act more
particularly Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act was intended to be
trenched upon by the Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act.
M.Mohanan Pillai vs Sumathy Amma on 9 September, 2009
In Ext.A1 dated 04.01.1982 (in O.S.No.357 of 1985) the age of Lathika is stated
as 22 years in which case she must have been born in the year 1960. In Ext.A2
dated 04.10.1979 (in O.S.No.167 of 1985) her age is given as 22 years. Even
then, she must have been born in the year 1957. It is not disputed that Lathika
died after 1.12.1976. Therefore Clause (iv) enumerated in page 178 of the
above decision should apply if other circumstances agreed with.
Sindhu Ajayan vs Damodaran Pillai on 9 March, 2011
8. The subsisting dispute is with
regard to the 1/3 share of the deceased second
defendant. Second defendant was a minor, aged
six years at the time when the suit was
instituted. It is admitted that she was born
subsequent to 1/12/1976. Question is who will
inherit to the properties of the second
defendant. First question is whether the
inheritance is as provided under Section 17 or
15 of Hindu Succession Act. As declared by the
Full Bench, when the second defendant was born
subsequent to coming into force of Kerala
Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act on
RSA 1145/06
12
1/12/1976, the succession is governed not by
under Section 17 of Hindu Succession Act but as
governed by Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act.
The settled position in Kamalamm's case (supra)
is,
"S.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."
Babu vs Ayillalath Arunapriya
While Act 30/1956 determined the
succession on death, intestate or testamentary; Act 30/1976
created a division during the lifetime of a person. If Rajan died
before 1.12.1976; his share remained a coparcenary property and
would have gone to the surviving coparcener. Provisions of Act
30/1956 could not be replaced by Act 30/1976; nor could there be a
plea of repugnancy because the Act 30/1956 is enacted by the
Union and Act 30/1976 by the State. There is absolutely no overlap
or even incidental trenching, since the aspects dealt with though
falling under the same entry in Schedule 3 deals with different fields
as is noted in Kamalamma's case (supra).
O.S.Karunakaran Pillai,(Died) Lhrs ... vs Sarasakumar on 14 August, 2025
3. Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana Pillai [1993 (1) KLT 174
(FB)]
Rajendran Nair vs Sreedeviyamma on 15 September, 2025
16. Having thus concluded that Ext.A4 (Ext.B3) is validly
attested, this Court proceeds to consider the other two substantial
questions of law framed in R.S.A.No.1227/2016. Once the settlement
deed is upheld and consequently the findings rendered by the First
RSA Nos.882 & 1227/2016
14
2025:KER:70751
Appellate Court as regards oral partition is also sustained, then no
consequences follows out of the subsequent questions of law raised by
this Court. Section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has no
application to the facts of the case. Much less, the provisions of Hindu
Joint Family System (Abolition Act), 1975 also does not apply to the
facts of the case. Thus the principles laid down by this Court in
Chellamma Kamalamma v. Narayana Pillai.J [1993 (1) KLT 174
(F.B.)] does not have any application at all. This is primarily for the
reason that the property at the hands of the original 1 st defendant -
mother is not an ancestral property and it is a self acquired property
of the mother in the year 1960 by virtue of a sale deed. Even if the
plaintiff and the 2nd defendant were born prior to 1975, no
consequences would follow because the 1 st defendant was entitled to
treat the property derived by her by virtue of a sale deed in whatever
manner she liked. Therefore, this Court is inclined to answer the
aforesaid questions of law against the plaintiff and in favour of the 2 nd
defendant.