S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs a case where the last Hindu male-holder died before the commencement of the Act and where he was succeeded by a female having limited interest, she without becoming the absolute owner, died after the Act came into force.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is from the judgment of the District Judge, Nizamabad, given on 30/07/1960, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed. The short but important question which must necessarily be answered in this second appeal is whether S. 8 of the hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) governs a case, where the last Hindu male-holder died before the commencement of the Act and where he was succeeded by a female having limited interest, she without becoming the absolute owner, died after the Act came into force. In order to find out a satisfactory answer to this question it is necessary to mention a few facts. the plaintiffs - appellant instituted a suit for a declaration that the alienation made by Sayamma, the 1st defendant, who lands under a sale deeds, dated 9-12-1955 is a sham and nominal transaction and that the plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners to Pedda Saidu, the last male-holder of the property and that they are not bound by the said alienation after the death of Sayamma, the alienor.

( 2 ) THE defence raised was that Pedda Saidu died possessed of the suit property, that the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for the declaration as they are not the nearest heirs of Pedda Saidu and that the alienation is not assailable because it was effected by Sayamma for legal necessity. It was also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of S. 14 of the Act.

( 3 ) THE trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that the plaintiffs are the nearest heirs entitled to succeed to the estate of Pedda Saidu. The learned district Munsif also held on all the issues against the defendants. The defendants, therefore, preferred an appeal which was allowed, It was held by the district Judge that s. 8 of the Act governs the instant case and in the light of the schedule to S. 8 of the Acts plaintiffs are not superior heirs to Pedda saidu and they are not, therefore, entitled, to sue. It is this view of the learned District Judge that is now assailed in this second appeal.

( 4 ) THE principal contention of Mr. Jaleel Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellants is that inasmuch as Pedda Saidu admittedly died long before the Act came into force the suit was instituted on 25-1-1956 by the reversioners for declaration that the alienation made by the widow is not binding upon them. Although Sayamma dies on 4-9-1956 during the pendency of the suit and the Act came into force in July, 1956 it is the orthodox Hindu Law which governs the case according to which the plaintiffs are the heirs to Pedda Saidu, the last male-holder. It is convenient here to read S. 8 of the Act :"8. the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter :- (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule ; (b) Secondly, if there is no heir of Class 1, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule ; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased ; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. "it is not necessary to extract the Schedule because it is admitted that in case s. 8 governs the instant case it is Sayamma, the brothers daughter of the last male-holder, who is a preferential heir to the plaintiffs who are the sons of bothers sons of the last male-holder.

( 5 ) THE contention of Mr. Jaleel Ahmed is that on the language of S. 8 it, must be held that the section would apply only to the succession of male Hindu if the male Hindu dies after passing of the Act. If, however, the male Hindu dies before the Act, S. 8 has no application. reliance is placed on the opening words dying intestate shall devolve".

( 6 ) IT is plain that for a proper appreciation of the question thus raised it is essential to understand not only the scheme of the Act but the fundamental chang