The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act II of 1929) applies to the property allotted to the last male owner at a partition with his coparceners, and such property is not limited to self-acquired property.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J, J.

( 1 ) THE problem that requires solution in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the property allotted to the last male owner for his share at a partition with his coparceners falls within the ambit of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 (hereinafter referred to as Act II of 1929 ).

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a short compass and are as follows. The properties in dispute originally belonged to one Davuluri Subbaiah having been allotted to his share in a partition with his brother Nagaiah. Subbaiah died on 16-6-1912 survived by his widow Lingamma and three sisters by name Peramma, Kotamma and Veeramma. After the death of Subbaiah, his widow enjoyed these properties as a limited owner. On her death, the properties were claimed by the adopted sons of Kotamma and Veeramma. As the right of these two persons was resisted by a person claiming to be the adopted son of Lingamma. The adopted son of Veeramma was obliged to file a suit for a decree for partition and allotment of one share to him and another to the adopted son of Kotamma who was impleaded as the 2nd defendant and the person who opposed the claim as 1st defendant.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested only by the 1st defendant, inter alia, on the defence that he being the adopted sons of Subbaiah was the real owner of the property. The trial Court while holding that the 1st defendant had not established that he was adopted by Lingamma, dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiff was not adopted during the life time of Veeramma and that Section 2 of the Act II of 1929 was inapplicable to the property of the description involved in this suit.

( 4 ) THE lower appellate Court while disagreeing with the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff was not adopted by Veeramma, affirmed the decision in agreement with his conclusion as to the applicability of Act II of 1929.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this decree, the plaintiff brought a second appeal to this Court contending that Act ii of 1929 governed the instant case. Our learned brother, Justice Seshachalapati reversed the decision of the Courts below having reached the conclusion that the property in question fell within the purview of Act II of 1929. It is this view of the learned Judge that is assailed in this appeal filed with his leave.

( 6 ) IT is convenient at this stage to turn to the provisions of Act II of 1929, round which the controversy revolves in this appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of that Act provides: " (2) It extends to the whole of India, except Part B States, but it applies only to persons who, but for the passing of this Act, would have been subject to the law of Mitakshara in respect of the provisions herein enacted, and it applies to such persons in respect only of the property of males not held in coparcenary and not disposed of by will. "

( 7 ) AMONG the persons who are enumerated in S. 2 of Act II of 1929 as being entitled to succeed to such property is the sisters son. We are here concerned with the connotation of the expression "the property of males not held in coparcenary and not disposed of by will. "

( 8 ) WHAT is urged in support of this appeal is that the words "not held in coparcenary" mean separate property which is synonymous with self-acquired property. The learned advocate bases himself mainly upon Annagouda Nathgouda v. Court of Wards, Satara, (1952) 1 Mad LJ 414 : (AIR 1952 SC 60), for the first limb of his argument and on Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi, (1945) 1 Mad LJ 108 : (AIR 1925 FC 25) for the second limb thereof.

( 9 ) THE observations in (1952) 1 Mad LJ 414 : (AIR 1952 SC 60) which formed the foundation of the first part of the contention are as follows : "thus the scope of the Act is limited. It governs succession only to the separate property of a Hindu male who dies intestate. It does not alter the law as regard the devolution of any other kind of property owned by a Hindu male and does not purport to regulate succ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document