(Parambarathil) Pattukkayal Chakutti and Others vs Kothembra Chandukutti

The parties to this second appeal are Thiyyas of Calicut following the Makkathayam Law, The sons of defendant 2 are the appellants. In a suit

instituted by the defendant 1 against the defendant 2 and his deceased brother Kelan (O. S. 1258 of 1916) he obtained a money decree against

the defendant 2 personally and against defendants 3-5, the wife and children of the deceased Kelan. In execution of that decree he attached the

family properties in possession of defendant 2. This second appeal arises out of the suit instituted by the appellants for a declaration that the

properties attached for the decree in O. S. 1258 of 1916 are not liable to be attached and sold for that decree. The lower Courts overruled the

appellants'' contention and dismissed their suit.

In second appeal it is argued that the suit property is impartible according to the Makkathayam Law governing the Thiyyas of Calicut and is not

liable to be attached and sold. The question whether the property is impartible or not was not raised by the plaintiffs as a point for decision either in

the pleadings or in the issues; but in support of the argument that the suit property is impartible the learned vakil for the appellants relied here, as in

the Court below on the decision in Raman Menon v. Chatunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 It is no doubt true that the parties to this suit are, as in Raman

Menon v. Chatunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 Makkathayam Thiyyas of Calicut, but we think that that decision must be confined to the facts and

circumstances in that particular case and ought not to be understood as a decision applicable generally to all the Thiyya families. In that case, the

plaintiff alleged that according to the customary law prevailing among the Thiyyas, the defendant 1 was entitled to a definite share in the property,

and the defendants pleaded that the properties were indivisible. The issue raised was vague and the evidence adduced was inconclusive and the

witnesses were not even asked the real question at issue. But the Subordinate Judge on the authority of two unreported cases came to the

conclusion that the ordinary rule of Marumakkathayam against compulsory pulsory partition was equally applicable to Thiyyas who followed

Makkathayam. In second appeal Muthuswami Iyer and Best JJ, observed that it should not have been decided in that way and they framed an

issue viz.,

Whether according to the customary law followed by the parties to this suit compulsory partition can be effected according to the wish of one

member of the tarwad.

and called for a finding on it after taking fresh evidence. In compliance with the said order the Subordinate Judge held that there was no

presumption that the Hindu Law of partibility of family property applied to the case of Makkathayam Thiyyas quoting, Rarichan v. Parachi [1892]

15 Mad. 281 as authority for that position, that there was no written evidence in support of such a custom and that the oral evidence was quite

unsatisfactory or insufficient to establish any such alleged custom of compulsory partition and returned a finding in the negative. The learned Judges

simply accepted that finding in second appeal and did not independently consider the question themselves. In view of the fact that the finding was

not arrived at on any satisfactory evidence in the case and that even the Subordinate Judge''s reading of the decision in Rarichan v. Parachi [1892]

15 Mad. 281 is not quite correct, as we shall presently show, we think that Raman Menon v. Chathunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 should not be

considered as a decision generally applicable to all families among Thiyyas. The same view has been expressed in Second Appeal 580 of 1917 by

Phillips and Krishnan, JJ., though by way of obiter. This is what the learned judges state:

We would only observe that it is questionable whether a single decision in Raman Menon v. Chathunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 can be said to be a

final decision binding on all Thiyyas of Calicut.

The decision in Valu v. Channu [1899] 22 Mad. 297 that the case of Raman Menon v. Chathunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 relating to the Thiyyas

could not be taken to lay down that rule of partibility does not prevail among the Iluvans of Palghat, even assuming that the Iluvans and the Thiyyas

had at one time been of one class also, lends support to our view.

We think the Makkathayam Thiyyas are governed by, what is called the customary law and that,when a question arises as to what is the rule of

law governing them on any particular matter, what we have to see is what is the rule of customary law obtaining amongst them in that matter and in

cases which are not sufficiently governed by prior decisions, the question will have to be determined with reference to the evidence in the case,

Vide Rarichan v. Parachi [1892] 15 Mad. 281 Raman Menon v. Chatunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 Kunhi Pemmu v. Chiruda [1896] 19 Mad. 440 in

each of which a specific issue was raised as to what is the rule of the customary law on the particular question at issue and the lower Court was

asked to submit a finding after taking fresh evidence on it. See also Imbiehi Kandan v. Imbachi Pennu [1896] 19 Mad. 1 where the learned Judges

observe that the Subordinate Judge was right in laying down that the question for decision was whether

according to the law and custom followed by Makkathayam Thiyyas of Calicut, property of a deceased person.

In the absence of any satisfactory evidence to show what exactly is the rule of the customary law on any particular point, the rule of Hindu law

on that point must, we think, be presumed and adopted to be the rule of the customary law obtaining amongst the community on that point. The

presumption is not that the Hindu Law as such is the law governing them in all matters; if that be the presumption a person who alleges a rule of

customary law at variance with it will have to prove it as a custom in derogation of the law. The presumption is simply that the rule of the Hindu

Law is also the rule of the customary law obtaining amongst them, so that if any person alleges that the rule of the customary law on any particular

point is something different, the evidence that he adduces in support of his allegation ought not to be subjected to those well known tests which are

applied to the case of an alleged custom contrary to or in derogation of the law, but should be viewed simply as evidence adduced to show what is

the rule of the customary law itself. The presumption therefore will be useful and will hold good only if satisfactory evidence is not forthcoming as to

what is the rule of the customary law. If the learned-Judges in Thaikkandhi Pokkancheri and Others Vs. Illivathukkal Achuthen and Another, or S.

A. 2092 of 1920 intended to lay down that the Hindu Law as such governs the community in all matters and that a person alleging a contrary rule

of law must prove it as a custom opposed to or in derogation of the law, we must with due respect, express our dissent from them,

We respectfully agree with the observations of the learned Judges in Rarichan v. Perachi [1892] 15 Mad. 281 on the point under consideration.

In that case a person died leaving some self-acquired property and his brother claimed to succeed to it in preference to the widow. He adduced

satisfactory evidence to show that according to the customary law prevailing amongst the parties the brother succeeds in preference to the widow.

The Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the brother; but the District Judge reversed his decree on the assumption that the Hindu law applied to the

parties in all matters and that any other custom alleged must be proved as a custom in derogation of the law. The High Court in Second Appeal

observed that that is not the correct view and that the only question is what is the law governing the parties on the particular matter and called for a

fresh finding. In compliance with the said order, the District Judge on a consideration of the evidence agreed with the Munsif that according to the

customary law governing the parties the brother succeeded in preference to the widow and the said finding was accepted in second appeal. In this

connexion reference might also be made to the well-known decision of the Judicial Committee, Fanindra Deb Raikat v. Rajeswar Das [1885] 11

Cal, 463. In that case the question was whether in a family which their Lordships of the Privy Council held to be not governed by the ordinary

Hindu Law, there was a family custom which did not allow an adopted son to inherit. On the evidence adduced in that case it was held by the

Privy Council that the custom referred to above was proved. As regards the question for consideration, their Lordships observed that the question

was not whether the general Hindu Law was modified by a family custom forbidding adoption and as regards the evidence relating to custom, their

Lordships observed as follows:

whether, if the Baikantapur family were shown to have become Hindus out and out saving only special customs, such evidence would be sufficient

to prove a special custom, need not be discussed here. The family is in a totally different position and their Lordships have no hesitation in holding

that whatever Hindu customs may have been introduced into it, the custom of succession by adoption has not been introduced.

These observations also clearly support the view we have expressed above.

Oldfield, J., in Raman v. Muthu A. I. R. 1921 Mad. 661 with whom Hughes, J., agreed is not apparently prepared to accept Rarichan v.

Perachi [1892] 15 Mad. 281 as laying down the correct law, mainly on the ground that neither Rarichan v. Perachi [1892] 15 Mad. 281 nor any

of the cases in Raman Menon v. Chathunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 Imbichi Kandan v. Imbachi Pennu [1896] 19 Mad. 1 and Kunhi Pennu v

Chirudu [1896] 19 Mad. 440 in all of which Rarichan v. Parachi [1892] 15 Mad. 281 is. referred to with approval. mentions Section 16 of Act 3

of 1873 (the Madras Civil Courts Act) and that by virtue of that section, in the absence of proof of special custom, Hindu law has to be

administered to Hindus. Section 16 only says that

where in any suit or proceeding, it is necessary for any Court to decide any question, (a) the Mahomedan law in cases where the parties are

Mahomedaus and the Hindu law in cases where the parties are Hindus; or (b) any custom (if such there be) having the force of law and governing

the parties or property concerned, shall form the rule of decision.

We think that the expression ""any custom having the force of law"" is wide enough to include the customary law which governs such communities

and that we are not therefore bound to apply to them the ordinary Hindu Law as such. The cases above referred to clearly hold--and we think

rightly--that the question in each case is what is the rule of the customary law on the particular point arising for decision and this position does not

in any way contravene the provisions of Section 16 of Act 3 of 1873.

We may also observe that Rarichan v. Perachi [1892] 15 Mad. 281 does not say that there is no presumption that the rule of Hindu law on

any particular point is the rule of the customary law governing the Thiyya community on that point. All that it says is that if satisfactory evidence is

produced to show that the rule of the customary law is otherwise, effect should be given to it.

In the present case the appellants simply relied upon the decision in Raman Menon v. Chathunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 in support of their

contention that the family property is impartible and have not adduced any evidence to show that that property is impartible according to the

customary law of the parties. As we pointed out above, the case in Raman Menon v. Chathunni [1894] 17 Mad. 184 cannot be held to be a

general decision applicable to all the Thiyya families. As the plaintiffs have not adduced any satisfactory evidence to show that the rule of

customary law on this point is anything other than the Hindu Law rule of partibility, we must hold that the presumption, that the Hindu Law rule of

partibility is also the rule of the customary law, holds good and that the rule of compulsory partition therefore applies to the present case.

In the result we confirm the decrees of the lower Courts and dismiss this second appeal with costs.