1963 (5) TMI 74 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the certificate granted by the High Court.
2. Applicability of the Ezhava Act or Marumakkathayam law.
3. Validity of the title to the property and right to redeem the otti.
4. Exemption from the Ezhava Act for Bhagavathi Valli.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the Certificate Granted by the High Court:

A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competency of the certificate granted by the High Court. It was contended that the suit was valued at 3500 fanams, and this valuation governs the suit for the purpose of the certificate. The amount or value being below the mark, the certificate was wrongly issued by the High Court. The court found that the valuation in the plaint determines the valuation for the purposes of appeal, but the real value of the claim must be determined apart from the valuation given in the plaint. The High Court found the value to be Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 80,000 at the two material times, concluding that the plaintiff was not required to value his plaint on the real or market value of the property but on the price for redemption. The certificate was, therefore, properly granted, and the objection was rejected.

2. Applicability of the Ezhava Act or Marumakkathayam Law:

The main question was whether Meenakshi and Vasudevan had any title to the property and whether they could transmit any title to the appellant. This depended on whether the Ezhava Act applies or the ordinary Marumakkathayam law. The ordinary Marumakkathayam law traces descent in the female line. If applicable, Meenakshi and Vasudevan, as the daughter-in-law and son's son of Bhagavathi Valli, were not heirs. The Ezhava Act defines and amends the law of succession and partition among the Ezhavas. The court found that the property in suit was gifted by Bhagavathi Parameswaran to his wife Bhagavathi Valli, obtaining the character of makkathayam property. Section 32 of the Act makes makkathayam property divisible among wife and children equally unless a contrary intention is expressed. The court concluded that the donor's intention in Exh. III was to give properties exclusively to his wife and grandson, indicating a contrary intention to the operation of s. 32.

3. Validity of the Title to the Property and Right to Redeem the Otti:

Dr. Seyid Muhammed argued that Vasudevan would have an interest in the property either way, whether it was shared by Bhagavathi Valli with her son and son's son or belonged to her exclusively. If the property was shared, Vasudevan would have the right to redeem the otti as a person interested, and so would the appellant as a transferee from him. Alternatively, if the property became that of Bhagavathi Valli alone, succession would be governed by Sections 18 and 19 of the Ezhava Act, which devolves the property on her issue how-low-so-ever. The court found that Vasudevan succeeded to a fractional interest in the property, allowing him to transfer that interest to the appellant, making the appellant a 'person interested' for redeeming the otti. However, this was contingent on the Ezhava Act's applicability to Valli.

4. Exemption from the Ezhava Act for Bhagavathi Valli:

The answering respondent claimed that Bhagavathi Valli had secured an exemption from the Ezhava Act. Evidence was led to show that Bhagavathi Valli had applied for and obtained this exemption. The plaintiff contended that the notification or the deposition of the witness could not be looked into without a proper plea or issue about the exemption. The court found that the parties understood the central issue was the application of the rules of succession in the Ezhava Act to Bhagavathi Valli. The notification was filed to controvert the plaintiff's allegation, and the subject of exemption was properly raised and considered by the High Court and the courts below.

The High Court held that Bhagavathi Valli was exempted from the operation of part IV of the Ezhava Act. The court concluded that the exemption had been duly proved, and under the pure Marumakkathayam law, Meenakshi and Vasudevan were not her heirs. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant was not entitled to redeem the otti, having never enjoyed the jenmom rights.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed with costs, as the High Court correctly concluded that the appellant did not have the right to redeem the otti due to the proper identification of the exemption and the application of the Marumakkathayam law.