Judgement

BHARGAVA, J. (on behalf of himself and Bachawat, J.) :- We have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed to be delivered by our brother Shelat, J., but regret that we are unable to agree with him. The facts of this case have already been given in his judgment and need not be reproduced.

2. As held by him, it is correct that until the Hindu Law Women s Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act X of 1933) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was passed, no female in Mysore had a right to share in joint Hindu family property under the Mitakshara Law as applied in that area. The right of Hindu woman in a joint Hindu family was confined to maintenance, residence and marriage expenses. The Act for the first time enlarged her rights. The Mysore High Court in Venkatachaliah v. Ramalingiah, (1944) 49 Mys HCR 456 stated this principle and, in our opinion, correctly. It was also correctly held by that Court that the object of Section 8 of the Act is to confer larger rights on females by giving them a share in the joint family property.

3. It is, however, to be noticed that S. 8, in conferring rights on females, envisages two different circumstances in which that right is to accrue to the