Ramachandran Vs Vijayan 2024 INSC 885 - Marumakkathayam Law - Partition

Marumakkathayam law- whether a female who, at the time of partition did not have any heirs, retains such property as her own or as tharwad property ? - SC Upheld the minority view taken in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi 1967 SCC OnLine Ker 68 : If at the time of partition the female is single, she continues to hold the property as her own, even if she has children in the future-  in order for a thavazhi to be formed, there has to be at least one female and her successive generation, either male or female, in the generation immediately succeeding and thereafter progeny of the female line.

Partition -  Partition is an act by which the nature of the property is changed, reflecting an alteration in ownership. (Para 33)

Constitution of India - Article 136 - Concurrent findings of fact are not to be generally interfered with unless special circumstances are shown warranting such interference. The scenarios in which exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would be proper, non-exhaustively, can be culled out as thus: Interference in concurrent findings has been termed justified if the finding - a) recorded does not emanate from the pleadings; b) is foreign to or entirely divorced from the evidence on record; c) is reached on the basis of the evidence which is irrelevant or extraneous and material evidence is ignored affecting its sanctity; d) runs contrary to any provision of law; e) is such that a reasonable judicial mind could not have arrived at it and/or the same is arbitrary; f) arrived at is perverse and the soundness of reason is compromised. Apart from the above-mentioned scenarios, a Court would also be justified in interfering with findings concurrent in nature if it is of the view that they cause undue hardship to the parties. Additionally, when the findings are such that the conscience of the court is shocked, interference would be called for- The following overarching principles should always be considered prior to delving into such exercise: The power has to be used sparingly and only when grave injustice is being caused to the parties of the dispute; The burden of proof to show that concurrent findings are unjust, warranting interference by this Court is on the appellant. Interference would not be warranted merely because in a given set of facts, a view different from the one which stands taken by the courts below, is possible. It is not within the realm of practicality that all possibilities be mapped out, as to when invocation of this power would be felicitous. The court has to take such a call having employed its wisdom, reason and judicial thought. (Para 54-56)