'Melpattam' Right Confers Only Usufructuary Interest, Not Ownership Over Land: Kerala High Court Reiterates

The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal challenging a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Sub Court, Vadakara.

The appellant claimed exclusive ownership over a property originally belonging to the family's ancestor, Kadungon, under a partition deed of 1911. The appellant relied on a chain of transactions, including a melpattam right granted by Kadungon's wife, Narayani, to her son-in-law Anandan, and a subsequent permission to build a house and dig a well, and two later conveyances through which the appellant ultimately acquired the property.

The Court examined whether such a transaction conferred an exclusive proprietary right over the property, thereby excluding the other co-heirs from partition.

Referring to the decision in Krishnan Nair & Anr v. Abdu [AIR 1965 Ker. 39 (FB)], the Court reiterated that a melpattam is only a right to take usufructs from the trees in the property and it does not create an interest over the land.

The Bench examined the nature and legal implications of melpattam rights in the context of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act and observed that there could not be a valid lease since the written consent of the major members of the Tarawad was necessary to grant a lease for more than twelve years or for a lease having fixity of tenure.

“Under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act to grant a lease for more than twelve years or of a lease having fixity of tenure, the written consent of majority of the major members of the Tarawad was necessary [See: V. P. Anandavally Amma v. V. P. Premalatha Kurup & anr. (1991 (1) KLJ 790)]. Admittedly there was no such consent. The grant was not for a limited period. Therefore, there could not be a valid lease. At any rate, the arrangement being only in the nature of a right to take usufructs, such issues do not arise.” the bench noted.

The Bench also considered sale deeds through which Anandan conveyed the property to his wife Lakshmi, and Lakshmi later conveyed it to the appellant. Citing Ammalu Amma v. Lakshmi Amma (1966 KLT 32), the Court held that a member of an undivided Tarwad cannot alienate her individual share in Tarwad or Tavazhi property without partition or consent of other members.

“Under Ext.B5 Sale Deed Lakshmi has purported to convey her share in the property to the first defendant. When admittedly the property is a Tarawad/thavazhi property, an undivided member could not alienate her purported share in the property. Hence Ext. B5 is of no consequence.” the bench noted.

Since there was no plea or evidence of adverse possession or ouster, and the documents themselves acknowledged co-ownership rights of other members, the appellant's claim of exclusive ownership was rejected.

The Court concluded that none of the transactions divested the Tarawad of its collective ownership, and held the property was liable to be partitioned among all co-sharers.

The preliminary decree for partition was upheld, and the appeal dismissed.

Case Title: Venugopal K Veloth v Mahilamani and Ors.

Case No: RFA 11/ 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 722

Counsel for Appellant: Mahesh V Ramakrishnan

Counsel for Respondents: B Krishnan, R Parthasarathy