Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is relevant to note that in the said decision, the succession opened in 1959 on the death of one Rama Chandra Pati. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17-6-1956. In the instant case before us, the succession opened on 21-2-1947 viz., the date of death of Rajagopal, husband of the plaintiff-appellant herein. Therefore this decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case before us.

26. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant herein refers to the decision in Chandi Charan v. Bhagyadhari A.I.R. 1974 Cal. 356, for the following observation in paragraph 6 at page 357 which runs as follows:

It is relevant to note that in this decision, the plaintiff therein was not able to prove the date of death of Sathya Charan. The suit was filed on 22-11-1956. Therefore, according to law, the presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872, started in that case from the date when the dispute arose, that is to say, when the suit was filed. So the succession opened on 22-11-1957, i.e., after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 30 of 1956. Now in the instant case before us, the succession opened on 21-2-1947, i.e., before the commencement of the Act and on that date both the courts below found that the plaintiff-appellant herein was unchaste which was a disqualification for succession under the provisions of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. We have already seen there is no retrospective effect given relating to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

35. In the instant case before us, it is relevant to note that the plaintiff-appellant herein was disqualified as per the provisions of Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 which was in existence on the date of death of her husband viz., 21-2-47. It was on that date itself succession opened. On that date when the succession opened, the plaintiff-appellant was found to be unchaste and at that time the unchastity was a disqualification for succession as per the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. Therefore, the decision in Sundari v. Laxmi , is not applicable to the facts of the case before us.

45. Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant next draws my attention to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It lays down that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force on 17-6-1956. Obviously, the rule of succession laid down in that section governs succession that has opened up after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 comes into operation. In the instant case before us, the succession opened on 21-2-1947 on which date the husband of the plaintiff-appellant herein died. It was only the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, that were in existence on the date of opening of the succession in the instant case. There is nothing in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to show that the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are retrospective. The succession to the estate of Rajagopal can only be determined by the law in force in the year 1947. The provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are inapplicable to the instant case.