The succession to property, which is traced through female members of the family, is commonly called as the Marumakkathayam system of inheritance. The term “Marumakkathayam” literally means “inheritance through sister’s children as opposed to sons and daughters”1. The people who governed by the Marumakkathayam were the Nairs, the Thiyyas or Ezhavas and the Mappilahs, and the Nanchilnad Vellalas2. Marumakkathayam of Vellalas tied them to the stem of the Nairs. It legalized the inheritance right to daughters and not to the sons. Then it accepted the law of inheritance. Originally the system of inheritance prevailed in ancient Kerala (Former Chera country). Later, it arrived in Nanchilnad and the Vellalas became the objects of the royal house of South Travancore and began to adopt the system in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Tradition has it, that they were originally natives of Pandinad, and that they immigrated into Nanjinad sometime in the remote past. It is believed that a dispute arose between the Pandya and the Venad rulers (probably in the reign of Vira Kerala of the 12th century A.D.) regarding the sovereignty over Nanjinad. In order to substantiate his supremacy over the place, the Venad ruler is said to have persuaded the Vellalas to utter a false declaration at the Madurai temple that they were Marumakkattayis like him. They were related to the right of Ukantudama3, Nankudama4 and Yappinakauntudama and some other social customs of their ancestors of Makkathayees. Every members of the Tarawad enjoyed equal rights and was entitled to maintenance from the common for property5.
They necessarily belonged to different families and no rights and duties were attached to marital union6. None could alienate any portion of the property to himself of leaser nor could lay claim to separate possession or enjoyment of any portion there under, unless otherwise secure the consent of all the members7. The ground work of the system was that the Tarawad estate was held in the impartible trust for the support of the females and their descendants in the female line of indissoluble family structure8. Yet the Nanchilnad Vellalar sought to practice the system without according any legal sanction thereof9. A widow, who had already been married by Thalikettu and had since become a widow, was remarried by Sambandam10. The husband arranged Istadhandam land to be known as Puthravakesan (Son’s right)11.
The Ukantudama system admitted within the Tarawad out of love and affection in the early stage secured a good footing in the later days and even claimed court protection12. Nankudama was the right of the issueless widow for maintenance from her husband’s family in the form of money allowance properties till her death or remarriage13.on the exceptional marriage of a woman and a old man, in addition to Ukandama right young bride enjoyed an allotment of a sum of money paid by the husband for the future of the young women14. As a preliminary step by the end of 19th century they sent representatives to the government requesting their intervention to curb and autocratic rights of the Karanavan15. Subsequently, in the memorandum signed and submitted to the Government in 1921, the Nanchilnad Vellalas proposed specific measures of check over his right on financial and property management16.
In the third session of the Sri Mulam Popular Assembly, a representative of the Nanchil Nadu Vellala Association named P. Madhavan Pillai prayed for the right of partition in the Nanchil Nadu Marumakkathayam families17. It urged the appointment of a committee to enact legislations for regulating marriage, succession and inheritance on a social basis18. Being unauthorized to examine witness, the committee held public meetings to gather public opinion and submitted an evasive report on 22nd June 191119. The council accepted the recommendation of this committee and introduced on June 1913, a bill declaring no change in the existing laws and powers of Karanavan20.
In several representations the members of the community declared the enactment of a more comprehensive legislative measure bearing provisions regarding partition, reduction of power of Karanavan, testamentary and intestate succession21. The agitation in different parts of Nanchil Nadu for the introduction of revised comprehensive bill led to the appointment of Raja Rajavarma Committee22 popularly known as the Vellala Committee, on 4th February 1921, it prepared the ground for the dissolution of Marumakkathayam. Towards enacting a comprehensive law the committee was entrusted to formulate definite proposals based on the enquiry into the customs relating to divorce partition, power of Karanavan and testamentary and intestate succession among the Nanchil Nadu Vellalas23. They demanded the addition of four more members and replacement of had a right24.
The opinion of the community was sharply divided into two, on advocating equal partition among individuals of all the members of the Tarawad and the other advocating equal partition only among brothers and sisters without considering the number of children they possessed25. They recommend the principle of the right of division by equal strips among the members of the highest grade, both male and female (irrespective of the number of children) on the death the common ancestors of the Tarawad26.
They claimed that only per strip method discussion and deliberations, the committee concluded that the Vellalas should accept the general principles of the Marumakkathayam law applicable to the Ezhavas and the Nairs27. Finally, the Select Committee accepted the per-capital partition and on 8th December 1924 forwarded its report to the secretary of the Legislative Council for discussion and passage. In the mean time P.S. Subramania Pillai, the President of Nanchilnad Vellalas Conference held a meeting at Padmanabhapuram and presented a memorandum to the Government on 31st October 1925 for the withdrawal of the Bill in order to enable a non-official to introduce a Bill according to the wishes of the people28.
On the other hand, the people of Putheri questioned the authority of the three Nachilnad Vellala members of the same family, M. Subramaniya Pillai, S. Maruthanayam Pillai and M. Siva Thanu Pillai to decide communal customs and demanded per capita division29. However after careful consideration at the last meeting of the Council in April 1926, the Nanchil Nadu Vellala Bill was placed in the Council with the under lying principle of granity the right to individual partition, the introduction of Makkathayam system and the enforcement of Monogamy with a strict regulation of marriage. The bill was passed by the council and was forwarded to Maharani Sethu Lakshmi the Regent on 14th June 192630, for her assent which she gave on 20th June 1926. One half of the properties were divided through the application of per capita principle among the male children then living of the common ancestress and their sisters31. Further if any daughter of the common ancestress was dead, the Thavazhi of such daughter would get a share to which she was entitled32. Yet it changed the Ukantudama right of a person to receive a share of his father’s property33. It allows the “Widow remarriage and divorce on merit in certain extreme cases and equal inheritance to male and female children34. With the effort of Theroor M. Subrmania Pillai the hardship of the long last practice of Marumakkathayam of inheritance was abolished. At present Nanjil Nadu Vellalas of Kanyakumari District followed the right of property goes to both the genders.
– K.K. Thanammal M.A., M. Phil.,
Assistant Professor of History, S.T. Hindu College, Nagercoil.
References
1. McLennan’s, Studies in Ancient History, Madras 1938, pp. 140-150.
2. Travancore Law Report, Vol. XI,, p.1.
3. Ukantudama was the claim to the sons performing the obsequil ceremonies to the deceased father.
4. Nankudama, right refers to the maintenance of childless widows.
5. The Regulation and Proclamation of Travancore, Vol.V, p.618.
6. Report of Marumakkathanyam Committee, p.7.
7. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative, File No. R.Dis.241 of 1926, Vol.3, p.26.
8. Report of the Marumakkathayam Committee, p.7.
9. Report of the Marumakkathayam Committee, pp. 15-16.
10. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative File No. R. Dis 241 of 241 of 1926, Vol.VIII, p.13.
11. Report of Marumakkathayam Committee, p.10.
12. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative File No. R.Dis.241of 1926, Vol.III, p.13.
13. As a custom the childless young widows who had a prospect of remarriage neither claimed Nankudama nor removed the Thali of their first marriage, Ibid., pp.37-39.
14. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative File No. R.Dis.241of 1926, Vol.III, p.13.
15. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative File No. R.Dis.241of 1926, Vol.III, p.39.
16. Ibid., pp.38-39.
17. Proceedings of the Travancore Legislative Council, speech of M. Subramania Pillai, Vol.XIX, p.78.
18. English Records, Trivandrum, Legilative File No. R.Dis. 241 of 1926.
19. Ibid., Vol. III, pp.4-5.
20. Proceedings of the Travancore Legislative Council, Vol. XIX, p.78.
21. English Records, Trivandrum, Legilative, File No. R. Dis.241 of 1926.
22. Originally the committee consisted of M. Raja Raja Varma, Dewan Peishkar as President, T. M. Chidambarathanu Pillai and M. Subramania Pillai of Therur two Vellala members Ibid., p.4.
23. Ibid., Nanchil Nadu Vellala Committee Office, p.1.
24. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative File No.R.Dis.241 of 1926, Vol.II, pp.10-12.
25. Proceedings of the Travancore Legislative Council, Vol.IV, pp.82-83.
26. English Records, Trivandrum, Legilative, File No. R.Dis.241 of 1924, Vol.II, Memorial submitted by the Nanchil Nadu Vellalas, pp.1-2.
27. English Records, Trivandrum, Legislative, File No. R.Dis. 241 of 1926, Vol.II, Select Committee Report, pp.7-8.
28. Ibid., Vol.III, Select Committee Report, 3 November, 1925.
29. Ibid., Vol.III, Select Committee Report, 4 November, 1925.
30. Proceedings of the Travancore Legilative Council speech of M. Subramania Pillai, Vol. XIX, 1931, p.79.
31. English Records, Trivandrum Legislative File No.R.Dis.241 of 1926, Vol.II, Roc No.35.
32. Ibid., The Nanchil Nadu Vellala Bill as settled by Council, Chapter.VII, p.5.
33. Ibid., Judicial File No. 46/134, Report read by P.S. Sivan Pillai, regulation of 106.
34. Proceedings of the Travancore Legislative Council, Vol.XIX, pp.79-80.