1905 (9) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Invalidates Share Transfer under Marumakkatayam Law

Arayalprath Kunhi Pocker and Ors. Versus Kanthilath Ahmad Kuti Haji and Ors.

The court found that the transfer of shares under exhibits A and FF, related to joint property governed by Marumakkatayam Law, was invalid due to lack of ... - Issues: Validity of property transfer under exhibits A and FF.Analysis:1. The appeal concerns the transfer of shares under exhibits A and FF, limited to the second and third defendants. The documents relate to joint property governed by Marumakkatayam Law. While joint owners can divide property by mutual consent, requiring consent from all interested parties is essential. Transactions must benefit the entire family, including minor members, to be binding on them. In the case of exhibit A, a minor member of the Tavazhi did not consent, rendering the transaction invalid to transfer a separate share to the second defendant. The argument that exhibit A conferred separate estate rights post the Full Bench decision was dismissed. The alleged ratification by the minor was not accepted due to lack of evidence and legal representation.2. Moving to exhibit FF, it is evident that minors were part of the Tavazhi during its execution, making their consent necessary for the transaction's validity. As no consideration was shown to bind the branch as a whole, the third defendant did not acquire a separate share under exhibit FF. Given these findings, other contentions raised by the appellants were not considered.3. The decree of the lower court was modified to exclude the plaintiff's right to sell specific items of the plaint properties. The suit was dismissed concerning these items, while the rest of the lower court's decree was affirmed.4. The parties were directed to bear proportionate costs of the appeal.