v 1 Kerala Nambudiri Act (Act 27 of 1958)
Ø 1.1 Sections 3 and 13 of the Kerala Nambudiri Act
Ø 1.2 Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act in 1975.
Ø 1.3 Section 7 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ø 1.4 Mulla on Hindu Law, 21st Edition, Chapter XVI, from the book titled as "Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law" by the learned author Shri P.R. Sundara Aiyar, a former learned Judge of the High Court of Madras
Ø 1.5 Madras Nambudiri Act, 1932
Ø 1.6 E.N.A.S. Narayana Iyer v. Moorthi Kendan and others (1938 Madras 643)
Ø 1.7 Govindan Namboodiri v. Paru Amma (1979 - 1985 KUC 665),
Ø 1.8 Mary v. Bhasura Devi (1967 KLT 430 - FB)
Ø 1.9 Narayanan Krishnan Namboodiri v. K. Ravi Varma and others (1956 TC 74).
Ø 1.10 It is submitted that Section 13 of the Kerala Nambudiri Act does not prevent a family to have a sakha partition and continue to have the concept of illom.
Ø 1.11 definition of 'illom' in Section 2(b) of the Act.
Ø 1.12 Omana Pandala Ampu Pandala and another v. Kesavaru Sambhuvaru Namboodiri and another (1970 KLJ 973)
Ø 1.13 Savithri Devaki Antharjanam v. Krishnaru & others (1972 KLT 532)
Ø 1.14 P. Krishnan Embrandiri v. P. Kesavan Embrandiri (1958 KLT 315).
Ø 1.15 The points which arise for determination are:-
§ 1.15.1 i) The principles of Hindu Law applicable to Nambudiris originally and the change, if any, under Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958;
§ 1.15.2 ii) The inter play between the provisions of Kerala Hindu Joint Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 and Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958, in a case where there is a partition of properties of illom. How far the incidents of 'Joint Family' under Hindu Law will be relevant in that context?
§ 1.15.3 iii) What is the effect of Ext.A1 partition deed on the shares allotted to the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff, even if properties were not divided by metes and bounds and the law on the said point?
§ 1.15.4 iv) Whether after Ext.A1 partition deed, the enjoyment of the properties is as joint tenants or as tenants-in-common? and
§ 1.15.5 v) Whether the preliminary decree passed is sustainable?"
Ø 1.16 In the book titled as "Malabar & Aliyasanthana Law" by Shri P.R. Sundara Aiyar, J., Chapter XVI discusses about the law applicable to Nambudiries.
Ø 1.17 In Mayne's Hindu Law & Usage, 14th Edn., at page 74 (paragraph 56) the following aspects have been explained with respect to the law governing Nambudiris:
Ø 1.18 In the book titled as "The Principles of Marumakkathayam Law" by Shri M.P. Joseph, in Chapter XIII the law applicable to Malayali Brahmins has been discussed.
Ø 1.19 Vasudevan v. Secretary of the State (11 Madras 157) at page 397
Ø 1.20 'Marumakkathayam and Allied Systems of Law in the Kerala State" by Shri K. Sreedhara Variar.
§ 1.20.1 Chapter X deals with the law relating to Nambudiries.
Ø 1.21 Madras Nambudiri Act, 1932
Ø 1.22 "Principles of Hindu Law" by Mulla, 15th Edn. At page 287
§ 1.22.1 "221. Incidents of joint family or coparcenary property.--
§ 1.22.2 Joint family or coparcenary property is that in which every coparcener has a joint interest and a joint possession (Katama Natchiar v. The Raja of Shivagunga - (1863) M.I.A. 539, 543, 611).
§ 1.22.3 The incidents of a coparcenary were summarised in the undermentioned decision of the Supreme Court (State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram - (69) A.S.C. 1330) [See 216 supra].
Ø 1.23 The following are the main incidents of joint family or coparcenary property:--
§ 1.23.1 (a) it devolves by survivorship, not by succession [229]:
§ 1.23.2 (b) it is property in which the male issue of the coparceners acquire an interest by birth.
§ 1.23.3 The fundamental principle of a joint Hindu family is the tie of sapindaship without which it is impossible to form a joint Hindu family (Karsandas v. Gangabai [(1908) 10 Bom.L.R. 184.].
§ 1.23.4 Joint family property is purely a creature of Hindu law, and those who own it are called coparceners.
§ 1.23.5 The distinction between joint family property and joint property comes into prominence only in two kinds of cases, namely, the case dealt with in para 223, sub-para (2) [property inherited from maternal grandfather], and that dealt with in para 228 [joint acquisitions]. After leaving para 228, we shall use the expression "joint property" as equivalent to "joint family property". It brings out the distinction between 'joint family' property and 'joint property'.
Ø 1.24 Govind Potti Govindan Nambudiri v. Kesavan Govindan Poti and others (AIR 1987 SC 2276)
Ø 1.25 Law applicable as far as Malayala Brahmins
§ 1.25.1 "It can, therefore, be stated and indeed not disputed that Malayala Brahmins are governed by Hindu law, unless they can be shown to have deviated in any, respect and adopted different practices, like local customs, if any. Some of their rights have now been regulated by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 (Act 27 of 1958).The Act provides for the family management and partition of illom properties among Nambudiri Brahmin community. Section 13 of the Act confers right on a member of illom to claim partition on per capita basis."
Ø 1.26 Narayanan Krishnan Nambudiries v. K. Ravi Varma (AIR 1956 TC 74)
Ø 1.27 E.N.A.S. Narayana Iyer v. Moorth Kendan and others (AIR 1938 Madras 643)
Ø 1.28 Mary v. Bhasura Devi (1967 KLT 430 - FB)
Ø 1.29 Govindan Nambudiri v. Paru Amma (1979-85 KUC 665).
Ø 1.30 Narayanan Krishnan Nambudiri's case (AIR 1956 TC 74)
§ 1.30.1 "We are clearly of opinion that it is the Hindu Mithakshara Law that should apply to the devolution of the separate or self-acquired property of a Malayala Brahmin male in the absence of the heirs mentioned in S.15 of Act III of 1106."
Ø 1.31 Vasudevan v. Secy. of State (11 Mad. 157)
Ø 1.32 Vishnu Nambudiri v Akkamma (34 Mad. 96)
§ 1.32.1 Nambudiris are ordinarily governed by Hindu law except to the extent to which that law has been modified by custom has been referred to.
v 2 Mary's case (1967 KLT 430)
Ø 2.1 Marumakkathayam Law.
§ 2.1.1 It was regarding the nature and incidents of property obtained by a family member as her separate share in partition under the Travancore Nair Act. It was held that under the Marumakkathayam Law, a subsequently conceived child gets a right by birth in the property obtained by its mother for her separate share in the partition of her tarwad, which implies that after an individual partition the property in the mother's hand continues to retain its character as tarwad property.
Ø 2.2 "Nambudiri Brahmins of Malabar are Hindus.
§ 2.2.1 "The Nambudiris are governed by Hindu law except so far as it is shown to have been modified by usage or custom having the force of law, the probable origin of the usage being some doctrine as it stood at the date of their immigration into Malabar or some Marumakkathayam usage. So also, in Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla (15th Edition, 1982) at pages 81 and 82, it is stated that the Hindu law applies to Nambudiri Brahmins except so far as such law is varied by custom. This is the position with regard to the Nambudiri Brahmins in the erstwhile Malabar area of the Madras State. The law governing the Nambudiri Brahmins (Nambudiri Malayala Brahmins) in the erstwhile Travancore and Cochin States is also the same. Narayanan Krishnan Nambudiries v. K. Ravi Varma and others (AIR 1956 TC 74). Nambudiri Brahmins are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law as modified by local custom, unless it is shown that they have deviated in any respect from the Hindu Mithakshara Law as expounded in the commentaries they should be held bound by that law. The presumption is that Nambudiri Brahmins are governed by the principles of Hindu Law; no doubt, a statute can provide otherwise."
Ø 2.3 Nambudiries are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law and therefore the same alone can apply to the facts of this case.
Ø 2.4 Savithri Devaki Antharjanam v. Krishnaru & others (1972 KLT 532)
Ø 2.5 P. Krishnan Embrandiri v. P. Kesavan Embrandiri (1958 KLT 315)
Ø 2.6 Omana Pandala Ampu Pandala and another v. Kesavaru Sambhuvaru Nambudiri and another (1970 KLJ 973).
Ø 2.7 Govindan Nambudiri v. Paru Amma (1979-85 KUC 665)
v 3 Omana Pandala Ampu Pandala's case (1970 KLJ 973)
Ø 3.1 the legality of the attachment effected by the decree holder in execution of the decree against the first defendant, of the interest which the first defendant is supposed to have in the property concerning illom was considered. There has been no individual partition of the illom and what is attached is not purported to be the share of the first defendant obtained in any such partition.
§ 3.1.1 ".............No doubt, in certain matters, they are governed by the Hindu Mithakshara law as modified by custom. But in regard to holding of property by the Illom, Nambudiries are not certainly governed by the principles of Hindu Mithakshara Law. Such property of the illom was not partible until the right to partition was recognised by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958. A limited right to partition was recognised earlier under the Travancore Malayala Brahmin Act, 1106, in S.20 and that was a right to partition of the properties among the widows of an illom when there were only widows surviving as members thereof. Just as in the case of Marumakkathayees governed by the statutory provisions such as Travancore Nair Act and Travancore Ezhava Act, in whose case the right to partition was recognised only by statute, in the case of Nambudiries also until such right was recognised by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958, no member of an Illom had a right to demand partition or to separate himself from the Illom and walk away with his share. The incidents of properties of the Illom vis-a-vis the member were more or less akin to that of a Marumakkathayam tarwad......................."
Ø 3.2 The above quotes will show that even though originally the properties of the illom were not partible, the right to demand partition has been recognised by Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958, which is significant as far as the facts of this case are concerned. Therefore, it is submitted that whatever was the position with regard to the applicability of Hindu Mithakshara Law in the earlier decisions, the position was changed after the enactment of Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958.
Ø 3.3 Kesavan Krishnan Potti v. Dewan Vasudevan and others (12 TLR 157)
Ø 3.4 The legal position therefore can be summarised as follows:
§ 3.4.1 Nambudiris are governed by Hindu Mithakshara law except to the extent modified by custom or by statute.
§ 3.4.2 Madras Nambudiri Act, 1932 and Kerala Namabudiri Act, 1958 are statutes which provide for modification as regards right to partition.
§ 3.4.3 The further question to be examined is whether the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the joint family continued till the enactment, viz. Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 came into force as well as the effect of Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 on the proprietary rights after partition.
Ø 3.5 The relevant provisions of the Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, therefore, requires to be considered.
Ø 3.6 Section 2 is the definition clause.
§ 3.6.1 In this Act, "joint Hindu family" means any Hindu family with community of property and includes-
§ 3.6.2 (1) a tarwad or thavazhi governed by the
§ 3.6.3 Madras marumakkathayam Act, 1932,
§ 3.6.4 the Travancore Nayar Act, 11 of 1100,
§ 3.6.5 the Travancore Ezhava Act, 111 of 100,
§ 3.6.6 the Nanjinad Vellala Act of 1101,
§ 3.6.7 the Travancore Kshatriya Act of 1108,
§ 3.6.8 the Travancore Krishnavaka Marumakkathayee Act, VII of 1115,
§ 3.6.9 the Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113, or the
§ 3.6.10 Cochin Marumakkathayam Act, XXXIII of 1113;
§ 3.6.11 (2) a kutumba or kavaru governed by the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949;
§ 3.6.12 (3) an illom governed by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958; and
§ 3.6.13 (4) an undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law."
§ 3.6.14 Therefore, a joint family for the purpose of the Act will be any Hindu family with community of property which include an illom governed by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958.
Ø 3.7 The provisions of the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 which came into force on 13.5.1958 define "illom" under Section 2(b) as the following:
§ 3.7.1 "2. Definitions.-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,
§ 3.7.2 (b) "illom" means all the members of a Nambudiri joint family with community of property and includes a 'mana'."
Ø 3.8 "3. Proprietary Right of members in Illom Properties.--
§ 3.8.1 Every member of an illom, whether male or female, shall have an equal proprietary interest in its properties.
Ø 3.9 13. Right of member to claim partition.--
§ 3.9.1 (1) Any member of an illom, male or female, may claim to take his or her share of all the properties of the illom over which it has power of disposal and separate from the illom.
§ 3.9.2 (2) A member of an illom separating from it under sub- section (1) shall be entitled to such share of the illom properties as would fall to him or her if a division Per Capita were made among all the members of the illom then living.
§ 3.9.3 (3) No claim to separate from an illom made on behalf of a minor member shall be allowed by any court unless it is satisfied that such separation would be to the benefit of such minor.
Ø 3.10 15. Character of property taken on partition.--
§ 3.10.1 The share obtained by any member separating from an illom under sub-section (1) of Section 13 or under Section 14 shall be the separate property of such member."
v 4 "223. Ancestral property.--
Ø 4.1 (1) Property inherited from paternal ancestor
§ 4.1.1 All property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father's father or father's father's father, is ancestral property. The essential feature of ancestral property according to the Mitakshara law is hat the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest in it by birth. Their rights attach to it at the moment of their birth
Ø 4.2 (4) Share allotted on partition
§ 4.2.1 The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. They take an interest in it by birth, whether they are in existence at the time of partition or are born subsequently. Such share, however, is ancestral property only as regards his male issue. As regards other relations, it is separate property, and if the coparcener dies without leaving male issue, it passes to his heirs by succession.
Ø 4.3 "generally speaking, the normal state of every Hindu family is joint. Presumably every such family is joint in food, worship and estate. In the absence of proof of division, such is the legal presumption."
Ø 4.4 Presumption whether a joint family possesses joint property
§ 4.4.1 "There is no presumption that a family, because it is joint, possesses joint property. When it is a suit for partition, a party claims that any particular item of the property is joint family property, or when in a suit for a mortgage, a party contends that the property mortgaged is joint family property, the burden of proving it rests on the party asserting it."
Ø 4.5 Kalyani v. Narayanan (AIR 1980 SC 1173)
Ø 4.6 Approvier v. Rama Subha Aiyan {(1866-67) 11 MIA 75}
§ 4.6.1 Partition is a word of technical import in Hindu law. Partition in one sense is a severance of joint status and coparcener of a coparcenery is entitled to claim it as a matter of his individual volition. In this narrow sense all that is necessary to constitute partition is a definite and unequivocal indication of his intention by a member of a joint family to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. Such an unequivocal intention to separate brings about a disruption of joint family status, at any rate, in respect of separating member or members and thereby puts an end to the coparcenery with right of survivorship and such separated member holds from the time of disruption of joint family as tenant-in-common. Such partition has an impact on devolution of share of such member. It goes to his heirs displacing survivorship. Such partition irrespective of whether it is accompanied or followed by division of properties by metes and bounds covers both a division of right and division of property (see Approvier v. Rama Subba Aiyan, (1886) 11 Moo Ind App 76 (PC) quoted with approval in Smt. Krishnabai Ganpatrao v. Appasaheb Tuljaramarao (1979) 4 SCC 60 at p. 68: (AIR 1979 SC 1880).
§ 4.6.2 A disruption of joint family status by a definite and unequivocal indication to separate implies separation in interest and in right, although not immediately followed by a de facto actual division of the subject-matter. This may at any time, be claimed by virtue of the separate right (see Girja Bai v. Sadashiv) 43 Ind App 151: (AIR 1916 PC 104). A physical and actual division of property by metes and bounds follows from disruption of status and would be termed partition in a broader sense."
v 5 "Mulla Hindu Law"
Ø 5.1 "321. What is partition.--
§ 5.1.1 According to the true notion of an undivided mitakshara family, no individual member of that family, whilst it remains undivided, can predicate of the joint property, or that a particular member, has a certain definite share, one-third or one- fourth. Partition, according to that law, consists in a numerical division of the property; in other words, it consists in defining the share of the co-parceners in the joint property; an actual division of the property by metes and bounds is not necessary. Once the shares are defined, whether by an agreement between the parties or otherwise, the partition is complete. After the shares are so defined, the parties may divide the property by metes and bounds, or they may continue to live together and enjoy the property in common as before. However, whether they do the one or the other, it affects only the mode of enjoyment, but not the tenure of the property. The property ceases to be joint and immediately the shares are defined, and henceforth, the parties hold the property as tenants-in-common."
Ø 5.2 Therefore, even if the parties are living together and enjoying the property, that will be only the mode of enjoyment and it will not affect the tenure of the property and they will be holding the property as tenants-in-common. Even in the extreme case of a re-union also, there should be clear evidence regarding the same. In the case of the plaintiff who was a minor, such an arrangement cannot be presumed also, since he was not competent to contract.
Ø 5.3 Man Singh (dead) by Lrs v. Ram Kala (dead) by Lrs. and others {(2010) 14 SCC 350}
v 6 Effect of partition.
Ø 6.1 Approvier's case (1886) 11 Moo Ind App 76 (PC)
Ø 6.2 Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma (AIR 1964 SC 136).
Ø 6.3 The history of the various enactments which recognised proprietary right will show that one of the earliest enactment is Madras Nambudiri Act, 1932 which conferred a right to seek partition which is a deviation from the Hindu law applicable to Nambudiris.
Ø 6.4 Effect of an unequivocal declaration of intention of a member of joint family to separate from family in case of Nambudiris
§ 6.4.1 K.P. Madhavi Ammal and others v. M. Subramanian Nambudiripad and others (AIR 1939 Madras 584)
Ø 6.5 Section 23 of the Madras Nambudiri Act which enables any member of an illom male or female to take his or her share of all the properties of the illom over which it has power of disposal and separate from the illom
§ 6.5.1 "This unqualified right which is given to every member of the illom was surely meant to be a right which would vest in the member of the illom who is making the claim in question, separation being of course a necessary concomitant of the claim. It could not have been intended by the Legislature that till the Court passed a decree in a suit preferred by any member of the illom, there could be no vested right in the member which could be transmitted by him either by will or otherwise. It is not seriously disputed that if he had chosen to make an alienation of his share during his lifetime the alienee would be entitled to maintain his right to recover the particular share that would have fallen to the deceased alienor. There seems to be no particular reason why the rule of law which applies to the Hindus governed by the Mitakshara law should not apply to Nambudris, namely that there is a division of status, and, so to speak, a division of title, and a proprietary interest vested in the person concerned the moment he makes an unqualified and unambiguous declaration of his intention to claim his share and separate himself from the family even though such declaration is unilateral."
§ 6.5.2 "In any case when the Legislature was considering this Nambudri Act of 1932, it must be obvious that it had this well established rule in its mind when it enacted this S.23 which gave every member of an illom the right to claim his or her share, that on the making of such a claim he would have a vested right so far as his share of the property was concerned, though that share remained to be ascertained later on, either by mutual agreement, or by an order of Court."
Ø 6.6 There will be a division of status, a division of title, and a proprietary interest vested in the person concerned, when such a person makes an unqualified and unambiguous declaration of his intention to claim his share and separate himself from the family.
Ø 6.7 Perigamana Illoth Gowri Antharjanam v. Perigamana Illoth Krishnan Embrandiri - 1977 KLT S.N. Page 7, Case No.17.
Ø 6.8 The principles of Hindu Mitakshara law can be modified by statute which is the view taken in Govindan Nambudiri's case (1979-85 KUC 665) and in Savithri Devaki Antharjanam's case (1972 KLT 532). The decision of the Division Bench in Perigamana Illoth Gowri Antharjanam 's case (1977 KLT S.N. Page 7, Case No.17) is a pointer to the change of law after the advent of Madras Nambudiri Act, on Mitakshara law principles which were relevant earlier.
v 7 Legal position as applicable after the Nambudiri Act was enacted
Ø 7.1 Sankaran Potti Madhavan Potti v. Kochehi Krishnan and others (AIR 1976 Kerala 129).
Ø 7.2 Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law and the change of law introduced by the Malayala Brahmins Act and Kerala Nambudiri Act
§ 7.2.1 "It is true that a Nambudiri family is akin to a Mithakshara family on several respects but as has been observed in the above ruling, Nambudiries are not governed wholly by the Mithakshara law, but by Hindu law as modified by custom. The customary law relating to partition among the Nambudiries is different from that of Mithakshara law and in line with the rule of Marumakkathayam law. Sundara Aiyar, J. in his Treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law observes at p. 212--
§ 7.2.2 "The principal difference between a Nambudiri family and a Hindu family governed by the ordinary Mithakshara law is the absence of a right in the members of the family to demand a partition of the family properties. In this respect the law of the Nambudiris is the same as the Marumakkathayam law. It is generally assumed that this is due to the acceptance by the Nambudiris of the law of non- partition which they found prevailing amongst their Marumakkathayam brethren. This is a wholly gratuitous assumption. The rule of impartibility is not peculiar to the Marumakkathayam law. It was the ancient Hindu Law which prevailed everywhere in India but except in Malabar, the Hindu Law in this respect was subsequently modified and the right to division of joint property was recognised."
Ø 7.3 Prior to the coming into force of Nambudiri Act of 1958, Nambudiris of Travancore area were governed by the Malayala Brahmins Act, 3 of 1106.
Ø 7.4 Section 2(1) of the Act reads as follows:--
§ 7.4.1 ""Malayala Brahmin" includes Nambudiri, Potti and others known or recognised as Malayala Brahmins but does not include those who according to the law governing them are entitled to individual partition before the passing of this Regulation." The above provision is also in conformity with the case that Nambudiris were not exercising the right to individual partition before coming into force of the statutes relating to the matter."
§ 7.4.2 Mayne's Hindu Law & Usage, 14th Edn. paragraph 56 which we have quoted, even though speaks about the Hindu Law applicable to Nambudiris as Mithakshara, the change effected by the advent of Madras Nambudiri Act (Section 23) which confers the right to partition, has been noted. In Govind Potti Govindan Nambudiri's case (AIR 1987 SC 2276) also the Apex Court has noticed the effect of Section 13 of the Kerala Nambudiri Act which allows a member to claim partition on per capita basis. The Division Bench in Savithri Devaki Antharjanam's case (1972 KLT 532) and a learned Single Judge in Govindan Namboodiri's case (1979-85 KUC 665) also were of the view that even though there was a presumption that Nambudiri families are governed by the principles of Hindu law, a statute can provide otherwise. Such a change was noticed by the learned Single Judges in the decision in Omana Pandala's case (1970 KLJ 973) as well as the later decision in Sankaran Potti Madhavan Potti's case(AIR 1976 Kerala 129). Therefore, after the advent of Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958, when the partition takes place, the sharers will get the property individually on a per capita basis. Even if the properties are not divided by metes and bounds, a common enjoyment if at all there will not give it a joint family character in the light of the principles discussed by the Apex Court in Kalyani's case (AIR 1980 SC 1173) and in Mulla's Principles of Hindu Law which we have already referred to.
v 8 Whether the joint family continued upto 1976
Ø 8.1 In fact, in the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 what we find from the definition is that it refers to a Hindu family with community of property. There should have therefore, ownership of the property in common by the family. Of course, it includes an illom governed by the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958. But in a matter like this where there was separation of shares of the illom, we will have to refer back to the provisions of the Kerala Nambudiri Act to understand how the separation has been effected and how the provisions of the Act will have its own impact on them. Going by the definition of 'illom' under Section 2(b) of Kerala Nambudiri Act, it means all the members of a Nambudiri joint family with community of property and includes a 'mana'. Therefore, when we read the definition of "joint family" under the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, and that of the 'illom' under the Nambudiri Act together, the entire idea will be evident and clear. Both indicate that there should be community of property. When Section 3 of the Nambudiri Act confers on every member equal proprietary interest in its properties and when Section 15 gives a character of separate property to the share obtained by any member separating from an illom under Section 13(1), it cannot be said that the property retains the joint family character, to the detriment of one sharer. When the entire properties of an illom have been partitioned and the members have taken their shares separately, merely by the expansion of the family later, it does not become joint family property in its entirety. The division is on a per capita basis and the parties have taken the properties as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.
