Judgement

Appeal (No. 26 of 1945) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (August 29, 1941) which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Court of the First Civil Judge of Saharanpur, District Saharanpur (January 10, 1938).

The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The parties in the action out of which this appeal arose were Hindus subject to the Mitakshara law of the Benares School, and this appeal involved the con struction of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 (II. of 1929) which is hereinafter referred to as " the Act." The Act was not expressed to come into operation on a particular day. It received the assent of the Governor General on February 21, 1929, and under the provisions of s. 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X. of 1897) it came into operation immediately on the expiration of February 20, 1929. The description and preamble of the Act made it clear that the object of the Act was to alter the order of succession of certain persons therein mentioned, namely, a sons daughter, daughters daughter, sister, and sisters son, and to rank them as heirs in the specified order of succession next after a fathers father and before a fathers brother. The Act thus amended the old order of succession in Hindu law by introducing certain persons as heirs who had no such place according to the ordinary interpretation of Mitakshara law. The Act was one of the several measures enacted during recent times, in a reformative spirit, with a view to bringing the ancient rules of Hindu succession into conformity with what are regarded as the changing conditions and sentiments of present-day Hindu society. It therefore selected certain relatives and gave them a preferential place in the order of succession, irrespective of their sex, over more remote relatives, on the ground that, judged by the pure test of blood relationship to the deceased owner, they were nearer heirs than those superseded by the provisions of the Act.

The question for determination in this appeal was whether, on a true construction of the Act, it applied only to the case of a Hindu male dying intestate on or after February 21, 1929 (the date of its operation), or whether it also applied to the case of such a male dying intestate before that date, if he was succeeded by a female heir who died after that date. The genealogical table relating to the parties her

in the case was as follows

KANHIYA LAL

|

| |

Sant Lal Chaman Devi

Shambhu Nath (wife)(d. July,

= 1936)

| Sabz Kali (Defendant No. 3) Respondent No. 4 | Raj Kali (Defendant No. 1) Respondent No. 2 | Anar Kali (Plaintiff) Respondent No. 1 | Lilavati (Defendant No. 2) Respondent No. 3 | Dharam Das (d. 1922) succeeded | Sumer Chand

by mother

| Shankar Lal | Dwarka Dass

| | | |

| | | |

Tota Ram Tota Ram Kundan Lal Baru Mall

(adopted son) | |

| | | | |

Shugan Chand Mst. Raji Duni Chand Qabul Gobind

(Defndant (Defendant No. Chand Prasad

No. 8) widow 4) Appellant (Defendant (Defendant

of Ram No. 1) No. 6) No. 5)

Swarup, son Appellant Appellant

of Kundan No. 3 No. 2

Lal, died

pending

proceedings,

representative

s are

appellants

|

Uggar Son

(Defendant No.

7) Respondent

No. 3

The facts giving rise to this litigation were as follows.

There was a partition by means of an arbitration award between Shambhu Nath, Ganpat Rai, Shankar Lal and Dwarka Dass. At that time Kanihya Lal and Sant Lal appear to have been dead. Under the award Shambhu Nath received as his share a certain set of property and a half share in another set of property. On Shambhu Naths death, his only surviving son, Dharam Das, succeeded to his properties, Sumer Chand having pre-deceased Shambhu Nath. Dharam Das died in 1922, before the date of the Act, leaving neither a widow nor descendants. His mother, Mst. Chaman Devi, succeeded him as his heir, taking a Hindu widos estate. He also left four sisters, Msts. Sabz Kali, Raj Kali, Anar Kali and Lilavati. Chaman Devi died in July, 1936 (after the date of the Act), whe