Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala

Jojy George Koduvath.

Introduction

The word “Marumakkathayam” means the system of inheritance through nephews and nieces; or descent-through-sisters’-children.

• It was essentially a way of life perfected into a custom among Hindus of ancient Kerala.
• The individuals, especially men, bound by this system officially accepted their parentage from their maternal uncle. That is, a man who follow Marumakkathayam would identify himself as the nephew of so-and-so, rather than son of so-and-so.

The vast majority of Hindus in Kerala were the followers of customary laws like the Marumakkathayam Law, the Nambudiri Law or the Aliyasanthana law. Among them, Marumakkathayam system was of primary importance (See: Leela Amma v. Aravindaksha Menon, 2012-2 KHC 169).

Marumakkathayam – the Common Ancestor was a Female

Almost all legal systems round the world, throughout history, claimed descent from their male ancestors. The peculiar characteristic of ‘Marumakkathayam’ is that the common ancestors in this system were females.

“Marumakkathayam” – a Body of Custom Received Judicial Recognition

Marumakkathayam, as a system of inheritance, eventually received judicial recognition as a body of custom. In K. K. Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala AIR 1960 SC 1080 at p. 1099 Subba Rao, J. observed thus:

• “Marumakkathayam law governs a large section of people inhabiting the West Coast of South India Marumakkathayam literally means descent through sisters’ children. It is a body of custom and usage which have received judicial recognition. Though Sundara Aiyar, J., in Krishnan Nair v. Damodaran Nair. ILR 38 Mad. 48: (AIR 1916 Mad. 751) (FB) suggested that ‘Malabar Law is really only a school of Hindu Law’. It has not been accepted by others.” (Quoted in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi, AIR 1968 Ker 82)

Characteristics of a Marumakkathaym Law

Joint Family System was the essential feature of Marumakkathayam, as a way of life. Joint Family was referred to as “Tarwad”. Other characteristics of a Marumakkathaym system were the following-

• The property belonging to the Marumakkathayam tarwad was the property of all the males and females who composed of it.
• Tarwad composed of all children (both male and female) of the common ancestress; and all children of the females in the female line (that is, all children, both male and female, of the daughters of the common ancestress, and all children, both male and female, of the grand-daughters of the common ancestress and so on).
  • Though tarwad consisted of a mother and her male and female children (and the sons and daughters of those female children and so on), the the children of the male members were not considered as members of the the tarwad (at least for claiming shares).
• When a partition is effected in the Tarwad, the number of shares was fixed on the basis of the the number of the daughters in the female line and the sons of each female member alone – who were the members of Tarwad (and not the children of the male members).
• Every member of a tarwad (members in the female line and their children – both male and female; and not the children of the male members) had equal rights in the property (Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni @ Mooppil Nayar v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080).
• The aforesaid right of those members were obtained by reason of his or her birth in the tarwad.
• Partition could have been effected only by the consent or concurrence of all the members of the tarwad. One or more members of a tarwad could not have claimed partition and separate possession of his or their share in the tarwad property. (Legislation made changes to it. See- M. K. Balakrishna Menon v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty -cum –lTO, AIR 1971 SC 2392).
• The affairs of the family were administered by one of the male members, usually the eldest one, called the “Karanavan”. (See:  Leela Amma v. Aravindaksha Menon, 2012-2 KHC 169)

PR Sundara Aiyar on Malabar & Aliyasanthana Law, is a locus classicus on the subject of Marumakkathayam Law, as pointed out by K.M. Joseph, J., in Kunhipappada Beefathummabi v. Kunhipappada Kunhikoya, AIR 2006 Ker 345 (FB) . The learned Author would state as follows:

• “The joint family in a Marumakkathayam Nayar tarwad consists of a mother and her male and female children, and the children of those female children, and so on. The issue of the male children do not belong to their tarwad but to the tarwad of their consorts. The property belonging to the tarwad is the property of all the males and females that compose it. Its affairs are administered by one of those persons, usually the eldest male, called the karnavan. The individual members are not entitled to enforce partition but a partition may be effected by common consent. The rights of the junior members are stated to be
  • (1) if males, to succeed to management in their turn
  • (2) to be maintained at the family house
  • (3) to object to an improper alienation or administration of the family property
  • (4) to see that the property is duly conserved
  • (5) to bar an adoption and
  • (6) to get a share at any partition that may take place.
• These are what may be called effective rights. Otherwise everyone is a proprietor and has equal rights.”

Quantum of Share allotted to each Thavazhi

The quantum of share allotted to each thavazhi depended on thetotal number of members in each thavazhi; and not on the number of ‘daughters’ taken into consideration for fixing number of thavazhies. (Sreedevi Nethiar v. Peruvunni AIR 1935 Madras 71; Kunhipappada Beefathummabi v. Kunhipappada Kunhikoya, AIR 2006 Ker 345)

Legislations

As shown earlier, the Marumakkattayam laws were codified in the form of statutes. But, the erudite class considered it as an antiquated and anachronistic practice. This archaic system had paved way to as-of-right-marriages (against the wishes of the parties to the marriage) between the cousins! (It had been developed into a custom!!) It continued in spite of the codification of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956!!!

All those statutes that supported Marumakkathayam were done-away-with-in-one-shot, with effect from 01-12-1976 by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975. The repealed Acts were the following:

• (1) The Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 (XXII of 1933),
• (2) The Madras Aliyasanthana Act 1949 (IX of 1949),
• (3) The Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100,
• (4) The Travancore Ezhava Act, III of 1100,
• (5) The Nanjmad Vellala Act of 1101 (VI of 1101),
• (6) The Travancore Kshatrlya Act of 1108 (VII of 1108),
• (7) The Travancore Krlshnanvaka Marumakkathayee Act, VII of 1115,
• (8) The Cochin Thiyya Act, VIII of 1107,
• (9) The Cochin Makkathayam Thlyya Act, XVII of 1115 ,
• (10) The Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113,
• (11) The Cochin Marumakkathayam Act, XXXIII of 1113,
• (12) The Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958 (27 of 1958)

One of the important and progressive effects of these legislations was that it conferred on the members the right to demand partition in the tarwad property and to get their separate share allotted to them. After partition, each group of sharers  got joint shares independent of other groups. If it was to an individual sharer, he/she got the share as his or her individual property free of all incidents of tarwad property. It was the converse implication of Sec. 39 Nair Act, which reads-

• “39. Nature of right to tarwad property before partition–Until partition, no member of the tarwad shall be deemed to have a definite share in tarwad property liable to be seized in execution nor shall such member be deemed to have any alienable or heritable interest therein.”

Marumakkathayam System of Inheritance Among Muslims

In Kunhipappada Beefathummabi v. Kunhipappada Kunhikoya, AIR 2006 Ker 345 (FB), it is stated as under:

• “The settlers in the Lakshadweep Islands including Kalpeni migrated to the said Islands from the North Malabar area, as also from South Canara. Even though embraced Islam, they continued to follow the Marumakkathayam system of inheritance. Under the same, as we have already noted, the tarawad properties were impartible. The Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act (Act XVII of 1939) was enacted in the year 1939. Now, it applies to all Muslims following the Marumakkattayam Law who are either domiciled in the State of Kerala or have property situated within the State of Kerala. Section 13 provided an individual member of a Tarawad to claim his or her share of the properties of the Tarawad over which the Tarawad had power of disposal and separate from the Tarawad. Section 14 of the said Act reads as follows:
  • ‘Two or more members belonging to the same tavazhi, may claim to take their share of the properties of the tarwad over which the tarwad has power of disposal, separate from the tarwad, and enjoy the same jointly, with all the incidents of the tarwad property’.”

Tarwad and Tavazhi

In Eravipillai Parameswaran Pillai v. Mathevan Pillai Ramakrishna Pillai, AIR 1955 TC 55, a Full Bench of the Travancore Cochin High Court held that property obtained by a Nair female towards her share under an outright partition in her tarwad would be her separate property but retained the character of a tarwad property and became the property of her tavazhi on the birth of a child to her. The birth of a child destroys her absolute powers of disposal in respect of such property.

Whether a subsequently born member in a unit acquired right by birth in that unit (and thereby, began a tavazhi) was came for consideration before the Five Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi, AIR 1968 Ker 82.

The majority took the same view taken by Eravipillai Parameswaran Pillai v. Mathevan Pillai Ramakrishna Pillai, AIR 1955 TC 55. The substance of the view of the Majority (PT Raman Nayar, TC Raghavan, Gopalan Nambiar,JJ) in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi, AIR 1968 Ker 82, was as under-

• So long as the property belongs to a single-member unit, that member has an alienable and heritable interest therein, liable to be seized in execution because he or she constitutes the unit. But, the moment another member is born in that single member unit, the single member ceases to be the sole owner and the single member unit turns into a joint family.

But, the minority (Govindan Nair, J. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.), applying the converse implication of Sec. 39 Nair Act, 1100, took the view that if a woman got share on partition in a Marumakkathayam tarwad, her subsequent born child would not get an interest by birth. The findings of the Minority was to the following effect-

• If individual partition and allotment of property separately to each member in a tarwad was possible such partition should bring about a severance of the community of rights among the members of the tarwad with the result that the property allotted to the separate share of each member was neither tarwad property (nor tavazhi property, by the birth of a new member) in the hands of the sharer.
• Such separate property could not again be converted into tavazhi property by the birth of a child to a female member or even by adoption by the male member.
• The intention and purpose of the enactment in conferring that right was to make the share separately allotted to the member heritable and alienable in his hands.
• The decision in 1963 Ker LT 859 (AIR 1963 Ker 358) laid down the correct law – that, the share obtained by a Nair female in an outright partition in her tarwad continued to be her separate property notwithstanding the birth of a child to her after the date of the partition.

The majority view in the Five Judge Bench in Mary Cheriyan v. Bhargavi Pillai Bhasura Devi, AIR 1968 Ker 82, was followed in subsequent decisions including Remadevi v. A S R Gopalakrishnan,2008-2  KLT 757. It is held in Remadevi v. A S R Gopalakrishnan,2008-2  KLT 757 as under:

• “The property obtained by a Marumakkathayee female towards her share under an outright partition in the tharavad or thavazhi will be her absolute property just like that of a male.  So long as she remains single, she can alienate it just like a male member and no one could question it. But the property retains the character of tharavad or thavazhi property and becomes the property of the thavazhi on the birth of a child to her so as to destroy her absolute powers of disposal in respect of it when in the partition property was allotted to the mother and her then existing children, which is a natural tavazhy the allotment could only be taken as to that tavazhy.”

Partition by ‘per stirpes’ and ‘per capita’

Marumakathayam system, in its pristine form, stood for partition by per stripes (per group – thavazhi). This was, mainly, because, it was not open to overturn the minors, in the partition. Ormsby who was Chief Justice of Travancore, in his book on Marumakathayam Law, says at p. 2, para 4:

• “Where division takes place it will usually be according to the taivaries, or number of daughters of the original ancestress. Each taivari may similarly be subdivided, should the members consent thereto and so on, until individual proprietorship is arrived at. I am not aware that this rule has ever been questioned.” (Quoted in Kunhipappada Beefathummabi v. Kunhipappada Kunhikoya, AIR 2006 Ker 345.)

However, the courts differed, in case to case, as to the principles to be adopted in partition – whether ‘per stripes’ or ‘per capita’ (as pointed out in detail in Kunhipappada Beefathummabi v. Kunhipappada Kunhikoya, AIR 2006 Ker 345).

---

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe“

---

Read in this Cluster  (Click on the topic):

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Title, ownership and Possession

• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?

Principles and Procedure

• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Admission, Relevancy and Proof
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE

Evidence Act – General

• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Sec. 65B
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?
• Law on Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as a ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Easement

• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Stamp Act

• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited

Will

• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal

Divorce

• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions