The succession to self-acquired property of a Hindu male dying intestate primarily devolves on male heirs, excluding female relatives unless no male issue exists.

JUDGMENT :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. The present first appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 13.09.2017 in O.S.No.697/2014, filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants are the two daughters of Mr. G. Shamarao and Smt. Rathnabai. Mr. G. Shamarao had acquired the schedule properties and there is no dispute that the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties, comprising of 05 Acres 23 Guntas in Sy.No.198, out of which, 01 Acre was converted for non- agricultural purposes situated at Sommanhalli, Bangalore South Taluk. G. Shamarao died in the year 1955, i.e. before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, enacted, and much before all its provisions came into force. Smt. Rathnabai died in the year 1984. G. Shamarao was survived by his wife, eight daughters including the two plaintiffs and son Govindaraju. Only two daughters, i.e. the plaintiffs were unmarried when G. Shamarao died. One plaintiff, viz. R.K. Saraswathi Bai got married on 28.04.1961, whereas, the other plaintiff Smt. Sakku Bai got married on 26.04.1959.

3. The two plaintiffs had filed a suit claiming partition of the schedule land which was a self-acquired property of late G. Shamarao.

4. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that all the suit scheduled properties, on the death of G. Shamarao, got devolved on the son, Govindaraju, to the exclusion of the mother and daughters and they cannot seek partition of the suit scheduled properties. The following issues came to the framed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings.

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/9^th share each in the suit schedule properties?

4. Whether the defendant No.5 to 10 prove that they are entitled for 1/6^th share each in the suit schedule properties?

5. whether the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient?

6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

7. To what decree or order?"

5. The point for determination in these two appeals is that, what law would be applicable in respect of the succession of the estate of late G. Shamarao, who died intestate in the year 1955.

6. Both the learned counsels for appellants and respondents are consensus ad idem to say that the provisions of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 would be applicable in the present case, and that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would have no application inasmuch as G. Shamarao died in the year 1955, before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

7. Thus, as mentioned above, it is not in dispute and it is admitted on behalf of both the parties that the suit scheduled properties were the self-acquired properties of G. Shamarao. Therefore, the suit scheduled properties cannot be treated as joint family properties or ancestral properties. In respect of the self-acquired property, Section 4 of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, would be applicable, which provides as under:

"4. Order of succession:-

(1) The succession to a Hindu male dying intestate shall, in the first place, vest in the members of the family of the propositus mentioned below, and in the following order.

(i) the male issue to the third generation;

(ii) the widow;

(iii) daughters;

(iv) daughters' sons;

(v) the mother;

(vi) the father;

(vii) widows of predeceased sons;

(viii) sons' daughters;

(ix) daughters' daughters;

(x) brothers of the whole blood;

(