The Matrilineal Joint Family

The kavaru is the branch: a female and her descendants in the female line, corresponding to the tavazhi. Under the Madras Aliyasantana Act 1949 a kavaru acquired a right to demand partition of its share from the kutumba, which was a considerable inroad into impartibility.

The sthanam

A sthanam is not a family but a dignity or office, held for life by a single person, the sthanamdar, with property attached to it. The office and its property passed to the next holder by seniority, and not to the holder's own heirs. It is dealt with separately by section 7(3).

What section 7 did

Section 7 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is headed "Devolution of interest in the property of a tarwad, tavazhi, kutumba, kavaru or illom", and it does the same thing for these systems that section 6 does for the Mitakshara coparcenary: it converts an undivided interest into a share that passes by succession.

Section 7(1): marumakkattayam and nambudri. Where a Hindu to whom the marumakkattayam or nambudri law would have applied dies after the commencement of the Act, having at the time of death an interest in the property of a tarwad, tavazhi or illom, that interest devolves by testamentary or intestate succession under this Act and not according to the marumakkattayam or nambudri law. The Explanation provides that the interest is deemed to be the share that would have fallen to him or her if a partition of the property had been made per capita immediately before the death among all the members of the tarwad, tavazhi or illom then living, whether or not he or she was entitled to claim such a partition, and that share is deemed to have been allotted absolutely.

Section 7(2): aliyasantana. The same rule, in the same words, for a Hindu to whom the aliyasantana law would have applied, dying with an undivided interest in the property of a kutumba or kavaru, with a corresponding Explanation providing for a per capita notional partition immediately before the death.

Section 7(3): the sthanam. Notwithstanding sub-section (1), when a sthanamdar dies after the commencement of the Act, the sthanam property devolves upon the members of the family to which the sthanamdar belonged and upon his heirs, as if the sthanam property had been divided per capita immediately before his death among himself and all the members of his family then living; and the shares falling to them are held as their separate property. The Explanation provides that the family of a sthanamdar includes every branch of that family, whether divided or undivided, the male members of which would have been entitled by custom or usage to succeed to the position of sthanamdar had the Act not been passed.

Two features worth naming

The notional partition is per capita. Section 6's notional partition divides among coparceners; section 7's divides per capita among all the members then living. That is a different and wider calculation, and the phrase "per capita" is the one to write.

"Whether or not he or she was entitled to claim such a partition." Because tarwad property was classically impartible, no member could have demanded a partition at all. The Explanation therefore assumes a partition that the law would not have allowed, purely in order to measure the share. Section 6's Explanation does the same thing for a Mitakshara coparcener, and for the same reason.

Section 7(3) abolished the sthanam in substance. By dividing the sthanam property per capita among the sthanamdar and every member of his family on his death, and making the shares their separate property, the section ensured that the office would have no property left to attach to.

What section 17 does

Section 17 makes special provision for persons governed by the marumakkattayam and aliyasantana laws, modifying the application of sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 to them. It is taken in [Testamentary Succession, Escheat and the Remaining Sections]; what matters here is that Parliament did not simply apply the general scheme to these communities but adjusted it to their structure.

The abolition Acts

Section 7 dealt with what happens on a death. The systems themselves were abolished by State legislation, and the one MU is most likely to expect by name is the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975, which abolished the joint family system among Hindus in Kerala altogether, converting members of an undivided family into tenants in common holding definite shares.

The Kerala Act is named here because it is standard in the textbooks. This book has not read it and states nothing further about its terms.

Matrilineal and Mitakshara compared

A worked example

Kesavan belongs to a marumakkattayam tarwad in Kerala. He marries and has two children. His sister also has children. He dies in 2024.

Which family do his children belong to? Not his. A tarwad consists of everyone descended in the female line from a common ancestress, so Kesavan belongs to his mother's family, and his children belong to their mother's.

Who manages the tarwad? The karanavan, the senior-most male member. That is why matrilineal does not mean matriarchal: descent runs through women and management through men.

Could the tarwad be divided? It was impartible; the tavazhi, the branch of a woman and her descendants, is the sub-unit within it.

What happens to Kesavan's interest on his death? Section 7(1) of the Hindu Succession Act: his interest devolves by testamentary or intestate succession under the Act, and it is measured by a partition assumed to have taken place immediately before his death, per capita among all the members of the tarwad, whether or not he could have claimed a partition.

And in an aliyasantana family? Section 7(2) does the same for a kutumba or kavaru.

And a sthanam? Section 7(3): on the death of the holder, the sthanam property devolves upon the members of the family to which the sthanee belonged and upon his heirs, as if it had been divided per capita immediately before his death.

How is the succession itself worked out? Section 17 applies sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 with modifications to persons governed by the marumakkattayam and aliyasantana law, merging agnates and cognates into one class of relatives.

Do these systems still exist? The systems themselves were abolished by State legislation, of which the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 is the one to name.

What it does NOT mean

Matrilineal is not matriarchal. Descent and property run through women; management ran through the senior-most male, the karanavan.

A tarwad is not a household. It is everyone descended in the female line from a common ancestress.

A man's children are not in his tarwad. They belong to their mother's.

Section 7 does not use the same fiction as section 6. The partition it assumes is per capita among all the members, not a Mitakshara notional partition.

Section 7 did not abolish these systems. It provided for the devolution of an interest in them; the systems were abolished by State Acts.

Section 17 is not a separate code. It modifies four sections of the Hindu Succession Act for two communities.

Quick revision

• Three systems: marumakkattayam, with its tarwad and tavazhi; aliyasantana, with its kutumba and kavaru; and nambudri, with its illom.
• The tarwad: everyone descended in the female line from a common ancestress; impartible; managed by the karanavan, the senior-most male.
• The sthanam: an office and the property attached to it, held by the sthanee.
• s.7(1) and (2): the interest of a member of a tarwad, tavazhi, kutumba or kavaru devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, measured by a partition assumed immediately before the death, per capita, whether or not a partition could have been claimed. s.7(3): the same for sthanam property.
• s.17: sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 apply with modifications, merging agnates and cognates into one class of relatives.
• Abolition: by State legislation, notably the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975.

Test yourself

1. What is a tarwad, and who manages it? A tarwad consists of all the persons descended in the female line from a common ancestress. It was impartible and was managed by the karanavan, the senior-most male member of the tarwad.

2. Does matrilineal mean matriarchal? No. Descent and the devolution of property ran through women, but the management of the tarwad was in the hands of the senior-most male member.

3. What does section 7 of the Hindu Succession Act do? It provides that the interest of a member of a marumakkattayam tarwad or tavazhi, of an aliyasantana kutumba or kavaru, and of a nambudri illom devolves by testamentary or intestate succession under the Act, the interest being measured by a partition deemed to have taken place per capita immediately before the death, whether or not the deceased was entitled to claim partition. Sub-section (3) makes similar provision for sthanam property.

4. Do these systems still operate? No. They were abolished by State legislation, of which the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 is the principal example, though section 7 continues to govern interests that fall to be dealt with under it.