KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. V. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND ORS.

INTRODUCTION

The case of Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. V. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki And Ors. involves an appeal concerning a suit for partition instituted by the defendants of the appeal. It is a land partition dispute, which explains the complexities of inheritance law and property rights in Kerala. The matter was first brought before the trial court, which decreed the suit in favor of the petitioners. Later, the First Appellate Court set aside the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. On further appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the First Appellate Court. Finally, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court. The main issue is whether the respondent of the appeal can claim partition over the property through his mother, who had married twice. The law governing the inheritance of the parties is a modified form of Mitakshara law applicable to the Makkathayees.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. Thiyyer Kunnath Meethal Chandu (Chandu), filed a suit for partition claiming an 8/20 share of the property. The defendants of the suit were the successors-in-interest of one Sankaran. Sankaran and Chandu are uterine brothers, both sons of Chiruthey. Sankaran was born from the first marriage with Madhavan and Chandu was born from the second marriage with Neelakandan after the passing of Madhavan.
2. It had become apparent from the evidence produced for trial that the owner of the property was Madhavan. On 7th July 1900, Madhavan and his mother executed a deed of mortgage. Apart from this, there were three other deeds which are considered in this appeal. 
3. On 14th July 1910, a lease deed was executed by Nangeli (mother of Madhavan) and Chiruthey on behalf of Sankaran who was a minor then. On the same day, another deed was executed in favour of Chiruthey and another individual named Kuttiperavan. On 22nd July 1925, Kuttiperavan surrendered his rights to the property in favour of Chiruthey and Sankaran.
4. The suit was allowed by the Trial Court. However, such a decision was reversed by the First Appellant Court. The reason for the reversal was that the wife would not have title to the property of the deceased since she contracted a second marriage. It was also found that Chiruthey had no right to lease out the subject property.
5. The High Court on appeal reversed the decision of the First Appellate Court. The court relied on the deeds executed in 1910 and held that the defendants cannot challenge the validity of the said deeds and question whether the plaintiff has the right to get a share is to be determined with reference to the documents in existence.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the petitioners to the suit have any title over the subject property?
2. Whether the order passed by the First Appellant court holding the title of the wife over the property of the deceased upon contracting a second marriage to be invalid according to section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 (“1856 Act”), is justified?
3. Whether the lease deed executed by the wife of the deceased is valid?

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The appellants contended that upon the death of Madhavan, his rights were passed onto Sankaran. Chiruthey would not get any rights as per the personal law applicable to the parties. The right of a widow to hold the property was recognized by the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, of 1937. But before 1937, Chirutheyi had remarried Neelakantan and, therefore, her right, if any, was lost by Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The respondents, who were the petitioners in the suit, contended that the property belonged to Chiruthey and Kuttiperavan as per the deed executed on 14th July 1910. Chiruthey and her son acquired the other half of the property from Kuttiperavan in 1925. On the death of Chiruthey’s son, she had a total share of 16/20 of the property. On her passing, half of the property would go to the defendants and the other half to the appellants. Thus the petitioner of the original suit claims their share of 8/20 of the property.
2. They also contended that the property never belonged to Madhavan as alleged by the notice of the appellants. 

JUDGEMENT

In the judgment of this case, the court upheld the decision of the First Appellate Court and set aside the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court invalidated the reasoning of the High Court that Chiruthey had legitimate right over the property. 

The lease deed executed in 1910 is held to be valid to the extent of the actual owners i.e. Nangeli (Madhavan’s mother) and Sankaran. Chiruthey is excluded from the right to deal with the property. Her right was limited to that of a lessee and not as the successor. Since the lease deed is valid, the other deed executed on the same day is also valid in the absence of any illegality. 

The defendants of this appeal have no right over the property through Chiruthey as she had lost her right over the subject property when she contracted a second marriage. Her status being that of a lessee, the ownership of the property could not be passed on to the original plaintiff. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS

The court observed that, on the remarriage of Chiruthey, her title to the property lapsed in accordance with section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856. Her title was that of a lessee. The court held that even if the subsistence of a deed is proved in evidence, the title of the executing person does not automatically stand confirmed. If a person seeks to convey a property which they have no title over, a specific declaration that the document is invalid would not be necessary. Since Chiruthey had no right or title to the property, she could not convey the same. In the absence of proper title to a property, that lease deed would not have had been legally valid or enforceable. The court held that if a person tries to convey any property to another to which they have no rights over, the new owner or their successors would not have any legal right to claim the right they may have derived from the document.

CONCLUSION

This case involves a suit for partition filed by one party claiming shares in the subject property. The main issue of the case was the validity of a lease deed and the question of whether the remarriage of a person affects their right over their property. The court settled the dispute and clarified the hierarchy of property rights. This judgment sets the precedent for future cases involving property disputes of similar nature. The court’s ruling serves as a guiding principle to ensure fair and equitable outcomes in such family matters.

REFERENCE

1. https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/kizhakke-vattakandiyil-madhavan-v-thiyyurkunnath-meethal-janaki-2024-insc-287-lease-deed-legal-heirs-1529912?infinitescroll=1
2. https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/if-deed-was-executed-by-person-without-title-successors-cannot-enforce-rights-on-property-based-on-such-deed-supreme-court-254872
3. https://legalvidhiya.com/legal-precedent-set-supreme-court-affirms-legitimacy-of-unusual-property-transactions-in-land-ownership-battle/

This Article is written by Yusra Fathima student of Government Law College, Thrissur,  Kerala; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin