The Indian Succession Act governs the succession of Christian daughters, entitling them to share the property equally, and payments made at the time of marriage cannot extinguish their right to share.

Manoharan, J.

A question connected with the succession of Christian daughters hailing from the Cochin area comes up for consideration in this appeal. Similar questions have arisen in the Travancore area of the State earlier. The matter has received the attention of the highest court of the land. The question relating to the Cochin area itself has been answered in an earlier decision. There is, however, a subsisting importance for the subsidiary contention raised in the appeal. That relates to an argument regarding the necessity to bring to hotchpotch for the purpose of the determination of shares of the daughters, the amount paid by way of Sreedhanam at the time of the marriage of daughters. We have discussed this question in detail in the succeeding paragraph. We are of the view that the Christian daughter, had sufferings all along. They had been, to some extent, obviated by the decision in Mary Roy's case, and the consequential application of Indian Succession Act dependant on the interpretation of the Part B States (Laws) Act. The subsidiary contention, according to us, indirectly and obliquely seeks to resurrect the dead issues of the Cochin Succession Act. The court conscious of the progressive realisation of the society, shall not set to retard the movement of time, still else, to setback the hands of the clock. The further details are discussed below.

2. Defendant is the appellant. Suit was for partition.

3. Plaintiffs and defendants are the children of Mariyam and E.C. Varghese. Plaint schedule property was acquired by Mariyam in the year 1111 M.E., out of the 24 cents, 3 cents was sold under Ext. A2. Mariyam died on 25-8-1981. According to the plaintiffs, the property devolved on them and the defendant in equal shares, and thus they are entitled to 1/3rd each in the property. Since the defendant is not giving profits from the property plaintiffs claimed mesne profits also.

4. Defendant contended, though purchase was in the name of Mariyam, the consideration therefore proceeded from the father and that since plaintiffs were given in marriage after giving sthreedhanam they are not entitled to any share in the property. According to him the first plaintiff was given 22/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments, house-hold articles and Rs. 8,000/- at the time of marriage and the second plaintiff was given 271/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 8,000/-. Defendant incurred an expense of Rs. 10,000/- towards the treatment of father and mother and for their funeral expenses.

5. Lower court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to one-third each in the plaint schedule property; there is no evidence to show that any amount as alleged by defendant was paid to the plaintiffs at the time of marriage. The lower court pointed out that, PW-1 has only admitted that she was given ornaments worth 71/2 sovereigns; and PW-2, the second plaintiff though said she was given 25 sovereigns of ornaments admitted in the cross-examination that in O.S.485 of 1978 filed by her against her husband she contended that she was given 271/2 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage. But the lower court found that there is nothing to show that the said ornaments were given in lieu of the plaintiffs 'share in the property. As indicated, the case of the appellant is that the plaintiffs were given streedhanam apart from the aforesaid ornaments, but there is no acceptable evidence in support of the same. The lower court passed preliminary decree subject to certain liabilities. There is no cross objection as to the liabilities on the estate found by the lower court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant maintained .that at any rate since PWs. land 2 were given ornaments worth 71/2 sovereigns and 271/2 sovereigns respectively at the time of marriage, that should be taken as in settlement of their claim of share. Alternatively it is contended that even if such payment of streedhanam may not extinguish the right to share, the same must be taken into