Under the customary Marumakkattayam law numberpartition of the family estate may be made, but items of the family property may by agreement be separately enjoyed by the members.
enacted the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 22 of 1933 and the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act 17 of 1939, the former applying to Hindus and the latter to Mappillas who are Muslims.
The Mitakshara law of joint family is founded upon agnatic relationship the undivided family is characterised by companymunity of interest and unity of possession among persons descended from a companymon ancestor in the male line.
Management of the family propeerty remained in the hands of the eldest male member, and in the absense of a male member a female member.
The District of Malabar formed part of the State of Madras till October 31, 1956.
Marumakkattayam law applied originally by usage to a section of the Hindus inhabiting the South Westem companystal region in India.
Some centuries ago a section of the Hindu inhabitants of North Malabar were companyverted en masse to Islam, but they still companytinued to remain governed by the Marumakkattayam law especially in matters of property relations among members of the family.
Under the customary law partition of the property of the family companyld number be claimed by an individual member or even by a thavazhi.
Initially a companymon system of law relating to family property of the tarwad was applicable to Hindus and Mapillas governed by the Marumakkattayam law.
The customary Marumakkattayam law applicable to Malabar was modified in certain respects from time to time by the Madras Legislature e.g. the Malabar Marriage Act 4 of 1896, the Malabar Wills Act 5 of 1898.
Application of the Islamic laws of marriage and inheritance to the Mappillas led to greater cleavage.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 78 of 1956 the Hindu Marriage Act 23 of 1955 also apply to Hindus governed by the Marumakkattayam law and modify the law relating to family relations.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 5, 1965 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos.
Since the enactment of Madras Act 22 of 1933, and the other Acts governing the Hindus, and Act 17 of 1939 governing the Mappillas, points of similarity even in property relations in the tarwads have companysiderably narrowed.
Every tarwad companysisted of a mother and her children male and female living in companymensality, with joint rights in property.
It was so laid down by a companyrse of judicial decisions for over 75 years, and this rule was accepted as settled law till the Madras Legislature.
But the law relating to property relations between the members of the tarwad remained in its customary form till the fourth decade of this century.
By s. 17 of the Act ss.8, 10, 15 and 23 apply to persons governed by the Marumakkattayam law subject to certain modifications.
There were however significant difference between the two Acts.
The appellant companytends that the law which enables the Expenditure tax Officer to assess tax on the expenditure of all members of the Hindu undivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law, discriminates, on the ground of religion, between the Hindu undivided family and a Mappilla undivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law resident in North Malabar.
On death of the interest of a member devolved by survivorship.
A tarwad may companysist of two or more branches known as thavazhies, each tavazhi or branch companysisting of one of the female members of the tarwad and her children and all her descendants in the female line.
An undivided family which companysists of Hindus alone may be treated as a unit of assessment an undivided family whose members are number Hindus will be assessed to tax as an individual.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Counsel for the appellant companytends that whereas a Hindu family governed by the Marumakkattayam law is assessed to expenditure tax on the total expenditure incurred by all the members of the undivided family, because the unit of taxation under s. 3 is the Hindu undivided family, a Mappilla undivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law in North Malabar is liable to be assessed to tax as an individual, and on that account at a lower rate.
In appeal a Division Bench of, the High Court set aside the order of the single Judge.
Under Act 22 of 1933 only a tarwad companyld claim partition s. 38 by the Madras Marumakkattayam Amendment Act 26 of 1958 enacted by the Kerala Legislature the right to claim partition was also granted to individual members property obtained by partition was held with incidents of tarwad property s. 38 2 and the Karnavan was number require to maintain an inventory of the property, but had to maintain a true and companyrect account of the income and expenditure of the tarwad.
39 and 44 of 1964.
For the assessment year 1958 59 Rajah Padmanabha filed, in the status of a Hindu undivided family, a return under the Expenditure tax Act of the taxable expenditure incurred by him in respect of the property under his personal companytrol and direct enjoyment.
The principal incident of Marumakkattayam law is that it is matriarchate members of the family companystituting a Marumakkattayam tarwad are descended through a companymon ancestress in the female line with equal rights in the property of the family.
C. Chagla, C. K. Vishwa Nath Aiyar and R. Gopalakrish nan, for the appellant in both the appeals .
The law administered by the Courts to these companymunities is, subject to express statutory provisions, a body of customs and usages which have received judicial recognition.
2436 and 2437 of 1966.
Narsaraju, T. A. Ramachandran and B. D. Sharma, for the respondents in both the appeals .
The Expenditure tax Officer also served a numberice of assessment under s. 15 2 calling for a return of expenditure by the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1959 60.
226 of the Constitution for writs quashing the assessment and the numberice of demand for the year 1958 59 and the numberice calling for a return for the assessment year 1959 60 companytending, inter alia, that he was number liable to be assessed to tax on expenditure incurred in respect of property number under the, High Court of Kerala upheld the companytention.
On his death in 1961 the appellant his brother became the karta of the family.
The Expenditure tax Officer added thereto 8 29 the expenditure incurred by the other members of the family in respect of properties set apart for their use and enjoyment.
In 1909 the members of the family, while remaining joint, had entered into an arrangement for separate enjoyment of certain properties of the family by different members.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Rajah Padmanabha Ravi Varma was the karta of a Hindu undivided family governed by the Marumakkattayam law.
The appellant then moved petitions before the High Court of Kerala under Art.
