LAWS(KER)-1966-12-15

KALI Vs. KAMALAKSHI AMMA

Decided On December 02, 1966
KALI Appellant
V/S
KAMALAKSHI AMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. S. 800 of 1957 from which S. A. 373 of 1152 arises was by the first plaintiff Kamalakshi Amma, and the second plaintiff her daughter, to set aside a sale deed, Ex. D-1 of the year 1956, executed by narayanan Madhavan in favour of Chempakakkutti, the first defendant appellant. Their right to sue to set it aside, depended on whether the first plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of Narayanan Madhavan and whether in any event, she derived any interest in the suit property. The two courts below have found against her on the first contention, and in her favour on the second.

(2.) NARAYANAN Madhavan was an Ezhava and the first plaintiff, now no more and represented by her legal representatives, was a nair. A marriage between an Ezhava male and a Nair female was not permissible under the customary law of Travancore or any enactment of that State except the travancore Special Marriage and Succession Act, 1119. That was an Act passed by his Highness the Maharaja of Travancore on the 29th August, 1643, in order to provide in the words of the preamble to the Act "a form of marriage for persons who cannot otherwise validly contract a marriage and whose marriage would otherwise be invalid and to provide a law of intestate succession for them". It is common ground, that there has been no marriage under the provisions of that Act or the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which replaced it on the 1st January, 1955.

(3.) IF the first plaintiff and Narayanan Madhavan had gone through some form of marriage known to and recognised by law as capable of producing a valid marriage, eventhough as a matter of fact the marriage was invalid, there would have been no trouble in the way of the plaintiffs in view of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Even though S. 30 of that Act repealed the hindu Marriages Validity Act, 1949, specific provision was made in respect of intercaste marriages in subsection (1) of S. 29 of that Act. That sub-section reads as follows: "a marriage solemnized between Hindus before the commencement of this Act, which is otherwise valid, shall not be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid by reason only of the fact that the parties thereto belonged to the same gotra or pravara or belonged to different religions, castes or sub-divisions of the same caste. " As no marriage was ever solemnized between the parties through any form of marriage known to and recognized by law as capable of producing a valid marriage, we must hold that there was no marriage between the plaintiff and Narayanan Madhavan, in spite of the long and intimate relations that apparently obtained between them.