VAZHAYILPARKUM THATTAN KUNHI KUTTY Vs. VAZHYILPARKAM THATTAN RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is one for partition by the plaintiff who is a member of the Thattan caste in North Malabar, which caste follows Makhattayam Law. Various issues were framed, but the original Court dealt with two only, Issue No. II, whether the properties are impartible and Issue No. XIV, whether the plaintiff is not the legitimate son of the deceased Valia Nambi, the owner of the property sought to be partitioned. The original Court held that the property is impartible which finding was enough to dispose of the suit, and that the plaintiff was what is known as Veetukutti, or the son of a Sambandham wife who is not brought to her husband's house, and that such a Veettukutti is not entitled to share in his father's property. The Appellate Court agreed with the original Court on the last two points but did not consider the first. It is urged before us by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, that the lower Courts have erred in law in coming to these conclusions.

(2.) To take the first issue as to partibility, we think the original Court has wrongly thrown the onus of proof on the plaintiff, though the frame of the issue threw it on the contesting defendant, and that it was wrong in holding that there is any presumption of law in favour of impartibility in the case of Thattan caste. The Thattans are Hindus; therefore, under Section 16 of Act III of 1873, the Courts have to apply to them the principles of Hindu Law, unless and until it is proved that they follow any, other Customary Law. The rule of Hindu Law is in favour of partibility, and impartibility is the exception. Makhattayam Law, which the Thattan caste admittedly follows, corresponds in the main to the ordinary Hindu Law. Marumakhattayam, in which partibility is unknown, is an exception to the general rule. Hence, prima facie, Makhattayam involves partibility. The original Court has relied on various rulings of this Court to rebut that legal presumption, but, in our opinion, these do not justify any such inference. The case in Rarichcm V/s. Perachi 15 M. 281 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 547 merely says that those who foil of Makhattayam must not be taken to be necessarily governed by Hindu Law, that is, that it is open to them to prove a custom at variance with Hindu Law; but it is no authority for the proposition that even if such a custom is not proved Hindu Law will not apply. The ruling in Raman Menon V/s. Chathunni 17 M. 184 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 126 proceeded on a definite finding that among Thiyyans there is no custom of cumpulsory partition. It may be noted that this ruling relates to Thiyyans. and not to Thattans, and that its correctness has been gravely called in question in a later ruling of a Bench of this Court reported as Karuppaliyal P.K. Raman V/s. Ramulathaparukkal V. Muthu 62 Ind. Cas. 534 : 40 M.L.J. 301 : 12 L.W. 218 : (1921) M.W.N. 233. In Imbichi Kandan V/s. Imbichi Pennu 19 M. 1 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 705 the decision follows the general principle of Hindu Law either of impartible or of divided property. The ruling in Kunhi Pennu V/s. Chiruda 19 M. 440 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1012 also substantially follows the ordinary Hindu Law as opposed to that of Marumakhattayam. In Velu V/s. Chamu 22 M. 297 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 212, which deals with the case of the Illuvans, the Court refused to extend to that caste the ruling of impartibility among Thiyyans as laid down in Raman Menon V/s. Chathunni 17 M. 184 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 126 and held that the Illuvans had proved a custom of partibility. There is, therefore, no good ground why this Court in the case of the Thattan caste should not follow the principle laid down in the Karuppaliyal P.K. Raman v. Ramulathaparukkal V. Muthu 62 Ind. Cas. 534 : 40 M.L.J. 301 : 13 L.W. 218 : (1921) M.W.N. 233, or depart from the ordinary rule that the ordinary Hindu Law has in the first instance to be applied, unless and until proof of custom to the contrary has been established. This principle has also been adopted in the two unreported cases of this Court coming from Malabar, Second Appeal No. 518 of 1901 and Second Appeal No. 1056 of 1919. As to proof in this case of any custom to the contrary, we find none, no proof of the sort which is required to establish a uniform, continuous, and definite practice submitted to for so long a period that it should, be accepted as an established governing rule of the caste. The original Court rejected Exhibit E, perhaps with reason, but if the law of Thiyyans is to be used to prove a custom of impartibility, amongst Thattans, then, Exhibit G, which lays down that the law among Kanichans is partibility, should be used in favour of the Thattans. But it is right that each caste should stand on the footing of its own rules and customs. Beyond the evidence noted there is only the vague evidence of three Thattans, D.Ws. Nos. 2, 3 and 4, that custom sanctions no compulsory partition, as against that of P.W. No. 2, another Thattan, who says it does. The evidence is very vague and seems to be based merely on the fact that the witnesses D.Ws. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have never known a case of partition. We cannot hold that such evidence affords in law sufficient proof of a valid custom, which would suffice to rebut the presumption of law that the property is partible. We hold, therefore, that the Trying Court on this issue has committed an error of law.

(3.) As to the next point, both the lower Courts have failed to address themselves to the proper legal points at issue. Assuming for the moment that there is a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff is illegitimate, it does not follow, as a matter of course, as the lower Courts suppose, that he is not entitled to a share in the joint family property. Among Sudras, under the ordinary Hindu Law, an illegitimate son is entitled to a share, and it was, therefore, open to the plaintiff to contend, as he does here, either that he is a Sudra for the purpose of Hindu Law, (which prima facie applies to his caste), since Hindu Law brings together as Sudras all castes below the Vaisyas; or to contend that his caste follows Sudra customs in the matter of the inheritance of an illegitimate child. On the merits of these contentions we say nothing at present, but would point out only that if the Hindu Law for Sudras is to be applied to the plaintiff's caste, he will prima facie, even if illegitimate, be entitled to a share without further proof or disproof of the custom; while if his case is to rest on proof of a custom by which Sudra custom is applied to his caste or on proof of independent custom altogether, then such custom will have to be proved. In the former case the onus of disproving the presumption of law will rest on the defendant; in the latter the onus of proving the custom will lie on the plaintiff.