Neelakantan Damodaran Namboori And... vs Velayudhan Pillai Narayana Pillai And...

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 19 May, 1958

Coram: P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K. Subba Rao

In this matter the Supreme Court of India, with a bench consisting of P B Gajendragadkar, A K Sarkar and K Subba Rao, heard three appeals that had been taken to the Court on a certificate issued by the High Court of Travancore-Cochin. The appeals were filed on 19 May 1958 and were directed against a common judgment of the High Court dated 5 December 1952. That earlier judgment, recorded as A Section 532, 535 and 540 of 1123, had set aside the decrees that the District Court of Kottayam had rendered in O Section 107 of 1114, 20 of 1116 and 72 of 1120, and had dismissed the suits that had been brought by the appellants. The central issue that the three appeals turned on was the question of whether the marriage between the first appellant, Damodaran Namboori, and the second appellant, Nangayya Antharjanam, had been performed in the sarvaswadanam form, a customary mode of marriage that determines the continuance of family membership. Although the pleadings in the cases contained a broader range of disputes, the Court stated that it was sufficient to summarise the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the question of the marriage’s nature.

The Court then outlined the composition of the family known as Kopprathu Illom in the Malayalam year 1102. The surviving members at that time were Vasudevan Namboori, his brothers Adityan Namboori and Narayanan Namboori, Vasudevan’s father, the widow of Vasudevan’s father’s brother, and Vasudevan’s daughter, Nangayya Antharjanam, who is the second appellant. The Court noted that another member of the Illom, Sankaran Namboori, had been treated as an out-caste in the year 1084; consequently he ceased to be a member of the Illom but continued to reside in the family house. The marriage between Nangayya Antharjanam and Damodaran Namboori took place on 25 June 1102. The Court explained that if this marriage had been solemnised in the sarvaswadanam form, the second appellant would have remained a member of the Kopprathu Illom; alternatively, if the marriage had been in the ordinary form, she would have ceased to be a member of that family.

The Court described the three suits that had been instituted concerning the family’s properties. Narayanan Namboori, a member of Kopprathu Illom, filed a suit recorded as O Section 20 of 1116 in the District Court of Kottayam seeking recovery of a suit property from the first defendant and his assignee, Velavudhan Pillai Narayanan Pillai, who was the second defendant. The plaint alleged that the first defendant had acquired the land under a kanom tenure by way of a compromise with the previous karnavan, and that this compromise was not binding upon him. In addition, the State had increased the tax payable on the same property. Consequently, Narayanan Namboori instituted another suit, recorded as O Section 107 of 1114, also in the District Court of Kottayam, with the purpose of setting aside the State’s order enhancing the tax. In that suit the State was impleaded as the first defendant, while the parties who were defendants 1 and 2 in O Section 20 of 1116 were impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 respectively. The Court noted that by 9 April 1116 all the members of the family, except the widow Nangayya Antharjanam, had died. The widow, as the sole surviving member of the Kopprathu Illom, executed exhibit XXIX in favour of the second defendant in O Section 20 of 1116, thereby granting him the properties of the Illom.

In the suit identified as O. Section 20 of 1116, a deed was executed in favour of the second defendant, who was also the appellant, and the deed transferred all of the Illom’s properties to him. After obtaining that deed from Nangayya Antharjanam, the last surviving widow of the family, Damodaran Namboori and his wife, Nangayya Antharjanam, filed a separate suit, O. Section 72 of 1120, seeking to set aside Exhibit XXIX and to recover the properties described in that exhibit. Their claim rested on the allegation that they were members of the Kopprathu Illom because their marriage had been performed in the sarvaswadanam form. At the same time, the first plaintiff in O. Section 107 of 1114 and O. Section 20 of 1116, namely Narayanan Namboori, died. Subsequent to his death, Nangayya Antharjanam—who was the daughter of Vasudevan Namboori—and her husband, Damodaran Namboori, filed a joint petition requesting to be impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased. In that petition they asserted that their marriage had indeed been celebrated in the sarvaswadanam manner. While the petition was pending, the widow Nangayya Antharjanam died, and the two petitioners were substituted as the second and third plaintiffs in the pending suits, subject to a final determination as to whether they qualified as members of the Kopprathu Illom by virtue of the said marriage. The defendants opposed the three suits, primarily on the ground that the marriage between Damodaran Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam had not been conducted in the sarvaswadanam form. They also raised additional pleas, which the court noted were not essential to the appellate issues. The learned District Judge dismissed all the defendants’ pleas and entered a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

Velayudhan Pillai Narayanan Pillai, who was the second defendant in O. Section 107 of 1114 and O. Section 20 of 1116 and the first defendant in O. Section 72 of 1120, appealed the district court’s decree to the High Court. After reviewing the evidence, the High Court concluded that Nangayya Antharjanam and Damodaran Namboori had not been married in the sarvaswadanam form, and consequently they were not entitled to be impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased Narayanan Namboori nor to continue the suits under O. Section 20 of 1116 and O. Section 107 of 1114 on behalf of the Illom. Because the appeals were dismissed on this preliminary ground, the High Court did not consider any of the other questions raised nor expressed an opinion on them. As a result, all three suits were dismissed with costs in both courts. The present three appeals have been filed against the High Court’s judgment. These appeals raise a singular factual issue: whether the appellants, Damodaran Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam, were married in the sarvaswadanam form. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate the precise ceremonies required for such a marriage or the legal consequences that flow from it. Neither the High Court nor the learned District Judge had attempted to argue that, although the marriage was ostensibly performed in sarvaswadanam form, the essential ceremonies were missing, rendering the marriage invalid.

In this matter the Court observed that, although the marriage was claimed to have been carried out in sarvaswadanam form, the parties had not demonstrated that the essential ceremonies required for such a marriage had actually been performed; consequently, the Court declined to pass any opinion on the customary incidents that would normally follow a valid sarvaswadanam marriage. The lower courts had proceeded on the assumption that, under a sarvaswadanam marriage, a daughter retained all rights in the family property in the same manner as a son, and that, if an agreement to that effect existed, the son-in-law would also become a member of the family. The Supreme Court therefore indicated that it would decide the appeals on the same factual foundation.

The factual background presented by the appellants stated that they were married on 25-6-1102 at Sivolli Thekke Mana, located in Vayalu Kara in Parur Taluk, which was the Illom of the father-in-law of Vasudevan Namboori. The appellants relied on Exhibit C, which they described as an agreement dated the same day, 25-6-1102, executed by Vasudevan Namboori in favour of Damodaran Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam. In that document Vasudevan recounted the composition of his family at the time of its execution, listing himself, his two younger brothers—Adithyan Namboori, aged 65, and Narayanan Namboori, aged 64—along with Nangayya Antharjanam, aged 84, who was the wife of his paternal uncle, his daughter Nangayya Antharjanam, and a person named Sankaran Namboori who was described as an out-caste. The document further explained that, because the family appeared likely to become extinct, Nangayya Antharjanam was given in marriage to Damodaran Namboori in sarvaswadanam form, and, as mutually agreed, ornaments and streedhanam valued at Rs 2,000 in cash were transferred. It declared that the couple and any future children would be members of the Kopprathu Illom. The agreement was attested by two witnesses, Hareeswaran Narayanan Namboori of Peringara Illom and Narayanan Narayanan Namboori of Sivolli Illom, and was registered on 19-9-1102. The High Court noted that, although the two attesting witnesses were alive at the time of registration, they had not been examined in the proceedings, and the evidence established that they were not alive at the date of the suit. The Court held that there could be no doubt that the document must have been executed before 19-9-1102. It further observed that the recitals in the document were natural, explaining that a Karnavan, upon discovering that his family faced extinction, would logically arrange the sarvaswadanam marriage of his daughter to preserve the family line.

The appellants maintained that the marriage between Damodaran Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam had indeed been performed in sarvaswadanam form on 25-6-1102 and that Exhibit C had been executed on that very date with the consent of the other family members. The respondents, however, contended that the marriage had been conducted only in the ordinary form, that Vasudevan Namboori was not the manager of the Illom—while it was agreed that Narayanan Namboori was the de facto manager of the family—and that the document had been prepared without the knowledge or approval of the other members, thereby favouring Vasudevan’s daughter. The dispute thus centered on which version of events was accurate.

The respondents contended that the document had been prepared by Vasudevan Namboori without the knowledge or consent of the other family members in order to advance the interests of his daughter. The central issue, therefore, was to determine which version of events – the appellants’ or the respondents’ – reflected the truth. Prima facie, the document appeared to support the appellants’ claim that the marriage had been conducted in the sarvaswadanam form. However, upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence, the Court found that the facts tended to corroborate the respondents’ version.

The Court observed that the circumstances prevailing within the family prior to the marriage date were essential for appreciating the evidence. Although Vasudevan Namboori was the eldest member of the Koprathu Illom and thus the de jure karnavan, it was a well-known fact that he had abandoned his ancestral house together with his daughter and taken up residence at Sivolli Illom, the dwelling of his father-in-law. In his testimony recorded in O. Section 448 of 1106, Vasudevan Namboori admitted that he had not attended to the affairs of the Illom at all since the year 1099. The cash-receipt exhibits identified as AC and AD, together with the michavaram receipts covering the years 1101 to 1104, were all in the name of Narayanan Namboori. There was no dispute that Narayanan Namboori, although a junior member of the family, had been exercising actual management of the family’s properties up to the time of his death.

The Court further noted that there had been prolonged litigation between Vasudevan Namboori and the other family members which endured for many years. The parties appeared to have come together only on the occasion of the marriage celebration. A few days before the alleged marriage, on 5-6-1102, all the male members of the Illom executed exhibit IX, the Otti deed, borrowing a sum of Rs 2,500 in favour of Mathew Korah. The deed recorded that the borrowed amount was required for dowry, ornaments and other expenses associated with the marriage of Nangayyakutty, the daughter of Vasudevan Namboori.

The Court examined the suggestion that, had the family intended the marriage to be performed in the sarvaswadanam form, the deed would have expressly mentioned such intention. While the High Court had treated the absence of such a mention as indicative that the marriage was not sarvaswadanam, this Court held that no conclusive inference could be drawn from that omission. It was explained that a mortgage deed is not the appropriate instrument for stating the nature of a marriage, as such a recital would be irrelevant to the purpose of borrowing money from a third party.

Moreover, the Court rejected the inference that the execution of the mortgage deed signified a reunification of the brothers, implying renewed confidence in their elder brother, Vasudevan Namboori, that would enable him to admit new members to the family without their knowledge. Instead, the Court concluded that the most plausible explanation was that all the family members jointly borrowed the money to meet a family obligation. Even after the marriage, Vasudevan Namboori remained at Sivolli Illom, just as before, while Narayanan Namboori continued to exercise de facto management of the family’s affairs.

The Court observed that the fact that the family continued to manage the entire family properties in the same manner as before was not in dispute. However, the Court considered the material issue of whether the marriage had been intended to be performed in the sarvaswadanam form. It questioned whether, if the marriage were truly sarvaswadanam, the family would reasonably have borrowed a large sum of money amounting to Rs 2,500 to be given as dowry or streedhanam, when the bride and bride-groom would become co-sharers of the family property. The respondents argued that such a payment was inconsistent with a sarvaswadanam marriage. Conversely, it was pointed out that among Namboori families the term “streedhanam” is also employed to denote “vara-dakshina,” and that the mere use of the word “streedhanam” does not conclusively determine the nature of the marriage. The Court noted that Exhibit C expressly stated that the marriage was in the sarvaswadanam form while also recording that streedhanam of Rs 2,000 had been given, and therefore the terminology alone could not resolve the issue. Nevertheless, the Court reiterated its earlier observation that borrowing a substantial sum of money on the eve of the marriage more closely aligned with an ordinary form of marriage rather than with a sarvaswadanam marriage. The Court then examined the antecedent conduct of the parties prior to the marriage, including Vasudevan Namboori’s taking residence in a different illom, the de facto management of the family and its properties by Narayanan Namboori, the prolonged litigation between Vasudevan Namboori and other family members, and the family’s borrowing of a large amount just before the marriage. These facts, the Court held, indicated that the marriage could not have been sarvaswadanam. If the marriage truly had been intended as sarvaswadanam, it was unlikely that other family members, particularly Narayanan Namboori, the de facto manager, would have refrained from joining in the execution of Exhibit C at the purported date of execution. The Court further considered the conduct of the parties after the marriage and after Exhibit C was executed. It stated that if the appellants had become members of the family by virtue of a sarvaswadanam marriage, they would be expected either to enjoy the income from the family property or, if they were unlawfully denied their share, to demand that share from the manager at some point. Damodaran Namboori, deponent PW-I, testified that after his marriage he resided for a period in Malabar, then at Sivolli Illom, and subsequently at Kopprathu Illom, admitting that he stayed at Kopprathu Illom for only ten to fifteen days and that neither he nor his wife received any maintenance from Kopprathu Illom at any time. The Court questioned whether, if he had truly been incorporated into the family fold along with his wife, they would have behaved as though they had no connection with Kopprathu Illom.

On the twelfth day of the month Karkadagam in the year 1104, Vasudevan Namboori executed a deed in favour of his daughter that authorised her to collect michavaram in respect of certain family properties. Thereafter, in the year 1106, Narayanan Namboori instituted O. Section No. 467 against Vasudevan Namboori, Nangayya Antharjanam and other parties, challenging the validity of that deed. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they asserted that Nangayya Antharjanam had been married in the sarvaswadanam form, and as a member of the family she was therefore entitled to maintenance out of the income of the Kopprathu Illom. Consequently, they claimed that the deed executed in recognition of her right to enjoy the property was valid. Narayanan Namboori subsequently filed an application contending that the marriage had been performed only in the ordinary form. Exhibit XV contains the judgment of the trial court, and exhibit XLIV records the judgment of the appellate court, which affirmed the trial court’s decision. The appellate judgment disclosed that the counsel appearing for Vasudevan and his daughter did not raise the question of the form of the marriage in the suit, but merely reserved the right to seek a remedy on that point in a separate proceeding.

The suit and the appeal were ultimately disposed on the ground that, even if the daughter were a member of the family, Vasudevan Namboori was not a manager and therefore lacked authority to execute the deed without the consent of the family members. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue of the marriage form was expressly raised, yet neither Vasudevan nor his daughter pressed the matter, indicated that they were uncertain of the strength of their position. Although they reserved a right to address the issue later, they made no attempt to do so until the present dispute arose and until all family members who could have testified about the form of the marriage had died. Moreover, when another occasion presented itself that might have yielded a definitive decision on the marriage form, the appellants displayed a lukewarm attitude. On the fourteenth day of October in the year 1112, Narayanan Namboori, his elder brother Adithyan Namboori and their father’s brother’s widow Nangayya Antharjanam executed exhibit XI in favour of Nilakantan Namboori, whereby “Schedule A” properties described therein were settled on Nilakantan, while “Schedule B” properties were reserved to Narayanan. The execution of this document directly challenged the appellants’ title, because if the marriage had been in the sarvaswadanam form, the family could not have executed such a document without the concurrence of the appellant. Although the respondent prompted the appellants to file a suit seeking to set aside exhibit XI, they did not take any steps to have the document rescinded. Nilakantan Namboori later sold some of the properties settled on him, and on the eighteenth day of October in the year 1117 he executed exhibit X, surrendering the remaining properties to Narayanan Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam. Even at that stage, the appellants failed to challenge the validity of either exhibit X or exhibit XI.

In this case the Court observed that the parties first asserted any claim to their rights only after the demise of every male member of the family. At that point Nangayya Antharjanam executed exhibit XXIX, in which she transferred all of her property to the respondent. Subsequently Damodaran Namboori instituted proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court, secured the protection of the aged woman, and obtained from her a document that cancelled exhibit XXIX. In that cancelling document Nangayya Antharjanam for the first time acknowledged that the marriage had been performed in the sarvaswadanam mode. The Court therefore concluded that the behaviour of Vasudevan Namboori while he was alive, as well as the conduct of the appellants, was consistent only with a conclusion that the marriage was not of the sarvaswadanam type. Conversely, the Court noted that the actions of the other members of the Kopprathu Illom, excluding Vasudevan Namboori, during their lifetimes were consistent with a marriage that had been solemnised in the ordinary form. It was also pointed out that Vasudevan Namboori had executed an agreement in favour of his daughter, granting her possession of certain Illom properties for her maintenance. In response, Narayanan Namboori filed civil suit O. Section No. 467 of 1106 in the District Munsif’s Court, Perumbavoor, challenging that alienation. Vasudevan Namboori defended the suit by stating that the agreement was executed to recognise his daughter’s share and to enable her to enjoy the income from the Illom properties. On 14-12-1106 Narayanan Namboori filed an application in the same suit, denying that the appellants’ marriage had been celebrated in the sarvaswadanam form. It was argued by the respondent that, although the marriage had taken place in 1102, Narayanan Namboori raised the question of its form only after four years, suggesting that his objection was a later after-thought. That argument presupposes that exhibit C was executed with Narayanan Namboori’s knowledge and consent, an assumption that the Court identified as the very issue to be decided. The record contains no evidence, other than oral testimony to be considered later, that Narayanan Namboori was aware of the existence of exhibit C. Consequently, the Court held that as soon as Vasudevan Namboori raised the question of a sarvaswadanam marriage, Narayanan Namboori denied that proposition at the earliest opportunity. The suit was ultimately disposed of, reserving the right of Vasudevan Namboori or his daughter to establish the nature of the marriage in a suitable proceeding. The Court then turned to the documentary evidence. Exhibit XIV is a copy of the deceased Narayanan Namboori’s replication dated 14-12-1106, filed in O. Section 467 of 1106 before the Munsif’s Court at Perumbavoor, in which he expressly denied that the appellants were married in the sarvaswadanam mode. Exhibit XI is the settlement deed executed by Adithyan Namboori, Narayanan Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam in favour of Nilakantan Namboori. This deed was executed after the death of Vasudevan Namboori. According to the terms of that deed, and taking into account the circumstances described therein, all rights in the ‘A’ Schedule properties were settled on Nilakantan Namboori, while the ‘B’ Schedule properties were reserved for Narayanan Namboori. It was asserted that this document was not intended to be given effect to and therefore the

The Court observed that the introductory statements contained in the contested document did not constitute substantial evidence. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the document had been executed on the premise that Adithyan, Narayanan Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam were the sole surviving members of the family and that the appellants were not considered members of that family. Exhibit X, an agreement dated 18-10-1113, had been signed by Nilakantan Namboori together with the three aforementioned family members. By virtue of that agreement, the properties listed in “A” Schedule were reassigned to the Illom, and the document was likewise predicated on the assumption that the appellants possessed no interest in the Illom property. Section Exhibit AH was an agreement dated 8-2-1112 executed by Adithyan Namboori in favour of Narayanan Namboori, whereby Adithyan relinquished his managerial rights to Narayanan Namboori and authorised him to undertake actions necessary for the continuation of the lineage and for the prosperity of the family. That agreement likewise omitted the appellants and was based on the premise that the appellants were the only male members of the family. The Court suggested that this agreement might not represent a genuine transaction but could have been executed for an ulterior purpose. The Court further pointed out that, in fact, Narayanan Namboori had been exercising de facto management of the Illom’s properties long before the death of Vasudevan Namboori, rendering the execution of the 1112 document unnecessary. However, the Court was advised that, under the “Malayalee Brahmins’ Act” (Act III of 1106), the right of management could be validly transferred only through a written document; consequently, after the death of the karnavan Vasudevan Namboori, Narayanan Namboori sought to obtain such a document from the succeeding de jure manager, Adithyan. Even so, the Court noted that this later document also reflected the consistent practice of the Illom members in disregarding the appellants and their status as family members. Exhibit XXI comprised a copy of the plaint recorded in O. Section No. 835 of 1114, filed in the Kottayam Munsif’s Court by Narayanan Namboori and Nangayya Antharjanam, seeking possession of a property that had been conveyed to Nilakantan Namboori under Exhibit XI. That plaint likewise failed to treat the appellants as members of the family. From these documents, the Court found that, notwithstanding the execution of Exhibit C, the family members other than Vasudevan Namboori never accepted the appellants as family members, and when the appellants asserted such status in 1106, Narayanan Namboori immediately denied it. The Court then turned to examine the conduct of the respondents, on which the learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance. Section exhibits H, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, AP and AR were alleged letters authored by the respondent, purporting to admit that the appellants’ marriage had been performed in the sarvaswadanam form; except for the letters identified as exhibits N, P and Q, which were admitted, the remaining letters had not been proved.

The Court noted that letters marked as N, P and Q were admitted into evidence, while the remaining letters were not proved. The majority of these letters had been addressed to Narayanan Namboori at Sivolli Illom, who was the maternal grandfather of the second appellant. These correspondences were drafted after Narayanan Namboori of Kopprathu Illom filed O. Section No. 1016 of 1112 against the respondent seeking recovery of the suit property on the footing of a lease. In the respondent’s written statement, an attempt was made to defeat the suit by claiming that the appellants had been married in the sarvaswadanam form, and consequently a suit that did not implead them as parties would be untenable. To advance this position, the respondent also wrote several of the aforementioned letters with the purpose of persuading Narayanan Namboori of Sivolli Illom, the maternal grandfather of the second appellant, to take steps to have exhibits X and XI cancelled on the ground that the marriage had been performed according to the sarvaswadanam custom. After the death of Narayanan Namboori, the respondent succeeded in obtaining document exhibit XXIX from the surviving senior family member, the elderly lady Nangayya Antharjanam, which purported to convey all family properties to him. The appellants promptly moved to have that document set aside. This reaction prompted the respondent to alter his stance and to deny that the marriage had been in the sarvaswadanam form. The Court observed that the respondent had not been present at the time of the marriage, and therefore his admissions were based solely on hearsay. The Court further remarked that the respondent’s conduct demonstrated a willingness to speculate in litigation and to adopt inconsistent positions in order to further his own objectives. Consequently, the Court held that the respondent’s admissions did not provide a sound basis for concluding that the marriage was in the sarvaswadanam form.

The Court turned to the oral evidence that remained in the record. Witnesses identified as PW-2 and PW-3 testified that the marriage had indeed been performed in the sarvaswadanam form and that exhibit C had been written and signed on 25-6-1102. Both of these witnesses were related to each other and also had familial connections to Damodaran Namboori. In addition, they asserted that a number of respectable elderly Nambooris had attended the marriage ceremony; however, none of these individuals was examined, nor was any effort made to call and examine the priest who, according to the witnesses, had officiated the marriage. The learned judges were unable to accept the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. Having reviewed the evidence, the Court found no justification for departing from this view. Moreover, the testimony of PW-1, identified as Damodaran Namboori, was deemed unreliable because he was evidently an interested party, rendering his evidence inadmissible.

In summarising the background, the Court observed that long before the marriage and the execution of exhibit C, Vasudevan Namboori and other members of the family were not on amicable terms and, in fact, were engaged in prolonged litigation. Vasudevan Namboori, together with his daughter, had left Kopprathu Illom when Sankaran Namboori was treated as an out-caste in the year 1084, and they subsequently took residence in the Illom of his father-in-law. Although Vasudevan had been appointed the karnavan from 1099, the actual management of the Illom’s affairs remained under the control of Narayanan Namboori. The family members later pooled their resources, borrowed an amount of Rs 2,500 and celebrated the marriage of the family’s daughter in 1102, fulfilling what was described as a legal obligation of the family.

The family performed the marriage of its daughter in the year 1102 because it was a legal obligation of the family. At the time of that marriage a streedhanam of Rs 2,000 was given to the bride. Exhibit C, which recorded the form of the marriage, was not signed by the de facto manager nor by any other elder members of the family. The document did not become known until 1106, and when it was finally relied upon, Narayanan Namboori denied that the marriage had been in sarvaswadanam form. Apart from Vasudevan Namboori, Narayanan Namboori and the other members of the family never treated the appellants as members of the family; they dealt with the property as if the appellants possessed no interest in it. The appellants, despite the execution of Exhibit C, never lived in the family house except for a period of ten days, never enjoyed the family income, and never claimed any share therein. They did not set up that they were married in sarvaswadanam form except in the document that Nangayya Antharjanam executed cancelling Exhibit XXIX. The respondent, who admittedly did not attend the marriage, adopted inconsistent positions to suit his convenience. The respectable persons who attended the marriage were not examined to prove the form of the marriage. The two witnesses who were examined were related to each other and also related to the first appellant. In view of these circumstances, and considering that Exhibit C was executed some time before it was registered, the Court held that it had not been established that the appellants were married in sarvaswadanam form.

The appellants then contended that even if the marriage was not in sarvaswadanam form, the last surviving member of the family had conveyed the suit properties to them under Exhibit A. Two obstacles prevented the sustenance of the appellants’ claim on the basis of Exhibit A. First, if the marriage had not taken place in sarvaswadanam form, Nangayya Antharjanam had acted within her rights in settling her properties on the respondent under Exhibit XXIX; unless Exhibit XXIX were displaced, Exhibit A could not have any legal effect. The second, more insurmountable obstacle, was that Nangayya Antharjanam did not create any interest in favour of the appellants under Exhibit A. Exhibit A states that, by reason of a sarvaswadanam marriage, the appellants were entitled to all movable and immovable properties belonging to Kopprathu Illom, and therefore the release deed was executed to confer all rights and claims they had obtained over the Illom properties by virtue of the sarvaswadanam form of marriage. Consequently, the document merely confirms pre-existing rights of the appellants; as the Court held that they had no such pre-existing rights, the document did not convey any interest to them. In the result, the appeals failed and were dismissed with costs.