Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Interpreted literally this dicision would seem to accord with the decisions of all the other High Courts except the Punjab High Court. But it should be noticed that the problem that we are faced within the present appeal and in the cases before the Punjab and Mysore High Courts did not arise before this Court on the earlier occasion. The decisions of the Madras High Court and the Patna High Court are not directly in point.

In the case before this Court the two women were in possession of property whose last male holder, who had died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, was their step son. They were not, therefore in legal possession of the properties of the last male holder. The question that had to be decided was whether because of the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act they were entitled to succeed under s. 8, and the further question whether s. 14 would be attracted as they were actually in possession. It was held that as they were not legally in possession s, 14 would not apply, It was in that context that it was said that where a male Hindu died before the; Act came into force i.e., where succession opened before the s. 8 of the Act will have no application, The point that succession might open not only when the male Hindu died but also subsequently again when a limited owner who succeeds him dies was not taken into account. There was no need and no occasion to consider such a contingency in that case. There was the further fact that the last male holder was succeeded on his death by persons who were then. his nearest heirs and the property vested in them could not be divested by the Hindu Succession Act coming into force subsequently thought this fact was not adverted to in the judgment. This Court had, therefore. also no occasion to consider the effect of the earlier decisions on the question as to what happens when a female limited owner, whether she is a widow, mother or daughter who succeeds the last male bolder, dies. That position may now be considered. It was authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in its decision in Moniram Kolita v. Keri Kaliteni (ILR 5 Calcutta 776 at 789) that :

It would be noticed that the Privy Council interpreted the words "dying intestate" as merely meaning "in the case of intestacy of a Hindu male" and said that to place this interpretation on the Act is not to give retrospective effect to its provisions. Those are the very words found in s. 8. These may be contrasted with the words of s. 6 "where a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act." Here the reference is clearly to the time of the death. In section 8 it is only to the fact of intestacy. The material point of time, as pointed out by the Privy Council, is the date when the succession opens, namely, the death of the widow. It is interesting to note that the Privy Council was interpreting the provisions of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 where the two contrasting expressions found in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not found.' The case for the interpretation of the words "dying intestate"

under the Hindu Succession Act is stronger. The words "where a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act"

in section 6 and their absence in section 8, are extremely significant. Thus two propositions follow: (1) Succession opens on- the death of the limited owner. and (2) the law then in force would govern the succession. Now if this proposition is correct, as we hold it is, that where a female heir succeeds to an estate, the person 'entitled to succeed on the basis as if the last male holder had lived up to and died at the (1) Mt. Rajpali Kunwer v. Surju Rai (58 All. 1041). (2) Shakuntala Devi v. Kambsalya Devi (17 Lah 356). (3) Katam Natchiar v. Rajah of Shiva Gunga (9 MIA 539), (4) Monirain Kolita v. Kerry Kolitang (7 IA 115: 5 Cal

We must also point out that the classes of cases where such a question is likely to arise is very limited. Where a widow, mother or daughter was in possession of the estate on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act she would become full owner under the provisions of the S. 14 of the Act. Even if a widow was in possession of the share belonging to her in the joint family estate tinder the pro

-visions of the Hindu Women's Right to property Act, 1937, she would become a full owner under s. 14. In both those cases S. 8 would have no operation. It is only in rare cases, like the present, that the question is likely to arise at all and we can see no reason either in principle or on authority why the principle consistently followed under the earlier Hindu Law that on the death of the limited owner succession opens and would be decided on the basis that the last male owner died on that day, should not apply even after coming into force of the Hindu ,Succession Act, Mr. Naunit Lal appearing for the appellant argued that the result ,of the decision of this Court in Eramma v. Verrupanna (supra) is that on the death of Wadhawa Singh's widow it is the old Hindu Law that applied and therefore under the custom in force in Punjab under which a daughter was not entitled to succeed to the ancestral property of the father in preference to the reversioners should apply and the appellants are entitled to succeed. There is no doubt about the position under the Customary Law of Punjab before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. In Rattigan's Digest of the Customary Law' published by the University Book Agency (14th Ed.), paragraph 23 at age 132 it is stated: