* 1. Msgr. Xavier Chullickal ... vs Plaintiffs on 8 March, 2000
"On the other hand, from the language of
Section 29(2) and the context and setting in
which it occurs, it is capable of leading only to
one conclusion, namely, that the provisions of
Part V are of universal application except in so
RFA.460/2000
12
far as that application has been excluded by
sub-section (1) or any other law for the time
being in force. The mere fact that there is a
custom relating to intestate succession or there
is some other law dealing with intestate
succession will not lead to the exclusion of the
applicability of the provisions of Part V of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925. From the very
nature of the case, a custom cannot exclude the
applicability of the provisions of a particular
statute. But a statute can do it. So long as an
existing statute has not excluded the
applicability of Part V of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, the provisions of the said Part V will
apply. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no
warrant for holding that Section 29(2) of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 saves an existing
custom or existing law relating to intestacy.
(emphasis supplied)
D.Chelliah Nadar and another v. G.Lalitha Bai and another
[AIR 1978 Madras 66 (DB)] which overruled the above decision
was in turn overruled and the dictum in Solomon approved by
the Supreme Court in Mary Roy. The same principle applies
not only to intestate succession under Section 29(2) but also
RFA.460/2000
13
to testamentary succession under Section 58(2) of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925.