{"id":155324,"date":"2006-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006"},"modified":"2016-10-20T20:13:16","modified_gmt":"2016-10-20T14:43:16","slug":"t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7424 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nT. Madhava Kurup\t\t\t\t\t\t     \n\nRESPONDENT:\nT.C. Madhava Kurup (D) by Lrs. &amp; Ors.\t \t  \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>B.P. SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment<br \/>\nand order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in A.S.No.188 of<br \/>\n1990 dated 29th June, 2001 allowing the appeal and dismissing the<br \/>\nsuit for partition filed by the appellant herein.  The question which<br \/>\narises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the suit<br \/>\nproperties being Tavazhi properties devolved on the two surviving<br \/>\nmale members of the Tavazhi after the death of the last female<br \/>\nmember as co-owners, or whether the suit properties devolved upon<br \/>\nthe last surviving male owner by survivorship who acquired the same<br \/>\nas his absolute property.  The trial court held that the last two<br \/>\nsurviving male members of the Tavazhi took the suit properties as co-<br \/>\nowners, and upon the death of one of them the properties devolved<br \/>\nupon his heirs, who were entitled to maintain a suit for partition. The<br \/>\nHigh Court reversing the finding held that the Tavazhi continued to<br \/>\nexist despite the death of the last female member, and that the last<br \/>\nsurviving member of the Tavazhi, if a male, took it as absolute<br \/>\nproperty.  The heirs of the male member, who pre-deceased the last<br \/>\nsurviving male member, acquired no right in the suit properties and<br \/>\ncould not, therefore, maintain a suit for partition and separate<br \/>\npossession.\n<\/p>\n<p>The facts of the case are not in dispute and may be briefly<br \/>\nnoticed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Vattiyot Tavazhi belonged to Ummamma Amma, who had<br \/>\na son Krishnan Nair and a daughter Mathu Amma.  After the death of<br \/>\nUmmamma Amma , the Tavazhi consisted of Krishnan Nair and his<br \/>\nsister Mathu Amma along with her three sons and a daughter.<br \/>\nKrishnan Nair died in the year 1934.  A son and a daughter of Mathu<br \/>\nAmma pre-deceased her without any issue.  The Tavazhi then<br \/>\nconsisted of Mathu Amma with her two sons Balakrishnan Nair and<br \/>\nAppa Nair.  Mathu Amma died in the year 1944 leaving behind her<br \/>\ntwo sons and their heirs.  The Tavazhi, therefore, consisted of no<br \/>\nfemale member but only two male members.  Balakrishnan Nair died<br \/>\nin the year 1950 and Appa Nair, the last surviving member died in the<br \/>\nyear 1967.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plaintiffs belonging to the branch of Balakrishnan Nair<br \/>\nfiled a suit for partition against defendents 1 to 4 belonging to the<br \/>\nbranch of Appa Nair.  It appears that during his life time Appa Nair<br \/>\nhad bequeathed some of the properties under a Will in favour of<br \/>\ndefendants 4 to 8 as also to the second defendant.  He had also gifted<br \/>\nsome of the suit properties to the 4th defendant.  The question which<br \/>\narose for consideration was whether after the death of Mathu Amma,<br \/>\nthe last female member of the Tavazhi, her two sons took the suit<br \/>\nproperties as co-owners, or whether the suit properties continued as<br \/>\nTavazhi in their hands and ultimately vested in Appa Nair, the last<br \/>\nsurviving member of the Tavazhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs claiming 2\/6th share in the suit properties filed<br \/>\nthe suit which was decreed by the trial court, but dismissed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  Counsel for the appellant submitted that upon the death<br \/>\nof the last female member of the Tavazhi, the Tavazhi properties<br \/>\ndevolved on the surviving male members as co-owners.   According to<br \/>\nhim, since the Tavazhi did not consist of any female member, it ceased<br \/>\nto exist as a Tavazhi and, therefore, the Tavazhi properties devolved<br \/>\nupon the surviving male members by inheritance and not by<br \/>\nsurvivorship.  Reliance was placed upon authorities in support of this<br \/>\nproposition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that<br \/>\nin the absence of a female member the Tavazhi properties became<br \/>\nabsolute property in the hands of the last surviving male member of<br \/>\nthe Tavazhi who could dispose it of as he liked.  The Tavazhi<br \/>\ncontinued so long as any member of the Tavazhi was alive.  In the<br \/>\nhands of the last surviving male member of the Tavazhi, the Tavazhi<br \/>\nproperty became his absolute property.  If there was no disposition by<br \/>\nthe last surviving male member, the doctrine of escheat applied.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt was urged on behalf of the appellant that the High Court<br \/>\nerred in holding that after the death of the last female member of the<br \/>\nTavazhi, the Tavazhi continued consisting of only two male members,<br \/>\nand that only upon the death of one of them, the sole surviving<br \/>\nmember of the Tavazhi became the absolute owner of the Tavazhi<br \/>\nproperties.  According to the appellant the settled position in law<br \/>\nunder the Marumakkathayam  system of inheritance is that the<br \/>\ndescent of property is through female and in the absence of a female<br \/>\nmember of the Tavazhi, the Tavazhi itself comes to an end and the<br \/>\nmale members inherit the property as co-owners.  The rule of<br \/>\nsurvivorship does not operate after the death of the last female<br \/>\nmember of the Tavazhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe may refer to the decisions relied upon by the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tCounsel for the appellant heavily relied upon a Division Bench<br \/>\njudgment of the Kerala High Court in Balachandran  vs.  Sankaran<br \/>\nNair :  1985 KLT 459.  That was a case in which the<br \/>\nMarumakkathayi female died leaving behind two sons and no female<br \/>\nheir.  It is no doubt true that in that case Kalliani Amma, the<br \/>\nMarumakkathayi, was possessed of self-acquired properties, which<br \/>\nexclusively belonged to her and not to the Tavazhi consisting of<br \/>\nKalliani Amma and her two sons.  The High Court held that<br \/>\ninheritance to the plaint scheduled property, which was her separate<br \/>\nproperty and not Tavazhi property, would descend to her close heirs<br \/>\nor to her Tavazhi.  Reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of<br \/>\nthe Madras High Court in  Krishnan  vs.  Damodaran : ILR 38<br \/>\nMadras 48.  The learned Judges, however, held that since Kalliani<br \/>\nAmma left behind only two sons as her heirs, there was no question of<br \/>\nher sons inheriting the property as Tavazhi since there was no female<br \/>\nfor the purpose of constituting or continuing the Tavazhi.  Therefore,<br \/>\nby no stretch of imagination it could be said that they inherited the<br \/>\nproperty as Tavazhi with the incidents of survivorship.  The learned<br \/>\nJudges went on to observe :-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;But it is only common knowledge that two surviving<br \/>\nmales by themselves cannot constitute or continue a<br \/>\ntavazhi.  If there is no question of inheriting the property<br \/>\nas tavazhi, the position is that the two sons take<br \/>\nindividually.  They inherited the property as the nearest<br \/>\nheirs of the deceased Marumakkathayi female.  It is<br \/>\nbeyond doubt that they take the property as tenants in<br \/>\ncommon.   There is no question of survivorship.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The principle as enunciated in this decision certainly supports<br \/>\nthe case of the appellant that after the death of last female member of<br \/>\nthe Tavazhi, the Tavazhi itself came to an end and the surviving male<br \/>\nmembers took the Tavazhi properties as co-owners.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the<br \/>\nprinciple laid down in the aforesaid judgment cannot be applied to the<br \/>\nfacts of the instant case because the aforesaid decision related to<br \/>\nproperty which was the separate property of Marumakkathayi female<br \/>\nand not Tavazhi property; whereas in the instant case, we are<br \/>\nadmittedly concerned with the Tavazhi property.  Assuming it to be<br \/>\nso, the learned Judges held, following the Full Bench decision of the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Madras that self acquisition of female member would<br \/>\ndescend to her close heir or her Tavazhi.  Since no Tavazhi existed<br \/>\nafter the death of the last female member of the Tavazhi, there was no<br \/>\nquestion of the properties descending on the Tavazhi.  There were<br \/>\nonly two male members, who could neither constitute nor continue the<br \/>\nTavazhi.  In these circumstances it was held that the property<br \/>\ndevolved upon them by inheritance as the close heirs of the deceased<br \/>\nMarumakkathayi female.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon decisions<br \/>\nwhich took the view that the last surviving member of a Tavazhi has<br \/>\nthe absolute right to dispose of the property in the manner he likes<br \/>\nsince the Tavazhi properties descend upon him by survivorship and in<br \/>\nthe absence of any female member of the Tavazhi, he has the  absolute<br \/>\nright to dispose of the same in the manner he likes.  On his failure to<br \/>\ndo so, the law of escheat may apply.  The legal proposition so<br \/>\nenunciated by the respondents is not even disputed by the appellant<br \/>\nsince that is the settled position in law.  The question, however, is<br \/>\nwhere only two male members survive, whether the law of<br \/>\nsurvivorship will still apply so as to make the last surviving member<br \/>\nthe absolute owner of the property.  The Division Bench decision to<br \/>\nwhich we have referred earlier answer the question in the negative<br \/>\nand, in our view, rightly so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe respondents placed reliance on a decision of the Privy<br \/>\nCouncil in Thiruthipalli Raman Menon and others   vs.   Variangattil<br \/>\nPalisseri Raman Menon : ILR 24 (1901) Madras 73.  That was a case<br \/>\nwhere the tarwad was reduced in number to the karnavan himself and<br \/>\none anandravan.  The karnavan adopted at his own discretion, and<br \/>\nwithout consent of the latter, 4 persons with a view to be the<br \/>\nmembers of the tarwad.  The adoptions were challenged on the ground<br \/>\nthat he could not make the adoptions without the consent of the other<br \/>\nsurviving male member, in the absence of any proved custom<br \/>\nauthorizing adoption by the karnavan alone.  The Privy Council held<br \/>\nthat though the last karnavan may have such a power to him alone<br \/>\nwith a view, as being essential, to preserve the tarwad, but in that case<br \/>\nthe last karnanan had not been reached, and the adoption by the<br \/>\nactual one acting alone without the consent of the surviving<br \/>\nanandravan was, therefore, invalid.   Relying upon this decision the<br \/>\nrespondents contended that it must logically follow that even in the<br \/>\nabsence of a female member, the tarwad continued and the karnavan<br \/>\nhad not acquired absolute authority to act in the manner he liked in<br \/>\nrelation to the tarwad or the tarwad properties.  Therefore, the law of<br \/>\nsurvivorship operated and the tarwad property vested absolutely in the<br \/>\nlast surviving male member of the tarwad.  It is not possible to read<br \/>\ninto the judgment any such principle.  Apparently the parties<br \/>\nproceeded on the basis that the tarwad continued to exists even in the<br \/>\nabsence of a female member.  The question that has arisen in the<br \/>\ninstant appeal did not fall for consideration in the aforesaid decision of<br \/>\nthe Privy Council.  The question was never urged before it.  The only<br \/>\nother decision on which the respondents have relied is Alami  vs.<br \/>\nKomu and another :  ILR 12 (1889) Madras 126.  This decision does<br \/>\nnot help the respondents because the question which has arisen for<br \/>\nconsideration in this appeal did not arise for consideration, and all that<br \/>\nthe High Court held was that the last surviving member of a Malabar<br \/>\ntarwad can make a valid testamentary disposition of the tarwad<br \/>\nproperties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the instant case the High Court distinguished the decision in<br \/>\nBalachandran (supra) observing that the question which arose for<br \/>\nconsideration in that case related to devolution of self acquired<br \/>\nproperty of a Marumakkathayi female, and not in relation to Tavazhi<br \/>\nproperty, and the question whether the tarwad can consist of only two<br \/>\nmale members did not expressly arise for consideration.  It further<br \/>\ndrew support from the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1351600\/\">Gowli Buddanna  vs.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Mysore<\/a>  : AIR 1966 SC 1523 wherein<br \/>\nin the context of the Income Tax Act, it was observed that under<br \/>\nHindu Law a joint family may consist of a single male member and<br \/>\nwidows of deceased male members.  Inferentially, the High Court<br \/>\nconcluded that under the Marumakkathayam Law as well, a single<br \/>\nmale member could constitute a tarwad.  In doing so, the High Court<br \/>\nlost sight of the vital distinction between the two that while under the<br \/>\nHindu Law descent is traced through males, in the<br \/>\nMarumakkathayam system of inheritance, it is traced through<br \/>\nfemales.  In the case of a Hindu Joint Family a single male coparcener<br \/>\nmay continue the coparcenary with his sons who may be born later,<br \/>\nbut in the absence of a female member a Tavazhi cannot be continued<br \/>\nby male members alone.  The comparison is, therefore, not apposite.<br \/>\nDifferent considerations may arise if the sole surviving member of the<br \/>\nTavazhi is a female.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe find that the observations in Balachandran (supra) are<br \/>\nsupported by good reason.  If the descent is traceable only through<br \/>\nfemales, in the absence of a female member, the Tavazhi must come to<br \/>\nan end with no chance of there being a female member to continue the<br \/>\nline.  The rule of survivorship in such circumstances ceases to operate<br \/>\nand the surviving male members, in the absence of a Tavazhi, must<br \/>\ninherit the property as tenants in common, and share it equally.  No<br \/>\nauthority was cited before us which takes a different view.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result this appeal is allowed.  The judgment and decree of<br \/>\nthe High Court is set aside and that of the trial court decreeing the suit<br \/>\nrestored.  There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 Author: B Singh Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7424 of 2002 PETITIONER: T. Madhava Kurup RESPONDENT: T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) by Lrs. &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2006 BENCH: B.P. SINGH [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-155324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-20T14:43:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-20T14:43:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2202,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\",\"name\":\"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-20T14:43:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-20T14:43:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-20T14:43:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006"},"wordCount":2202,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006","name":"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-20T14:43:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-madhava-kurup-vs-t-c-madhava-kurup-d-by-lrs-ors-on-5-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. Madhava Kurup vs T.C. Madhava Kurup (D) By Lrs. &amp; Ors on 5 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=155324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}