The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Indian Succession Act 1925 repealed the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1092, and hence governed intestate succession to the property of Indian Christians in the territories of the former State of Travancore.

1. These Writ Petitions raise an interesting question as to whether after the coming into force of the Part B States (Laws) Act 1951, 'the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1092 continues to govern intestate succession to the property of a member of the Indian Christian Community in the territories originally forming part of the erstwhile State of Travancore or is such intestate succession governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 and if it continues to be governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1092, whether S.24, 28 and 29 of that Act are unconstitutional and void as being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. This question is of great importance because it affects the property rights of women belonging to the Indian Christian Community in the territories of the former State of Travancore. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this question to refer to the facts of any particular Writ Petition. It will be sufficient to trace the history of the legislation in regard to intestate succession to the property of members of the Indian Christian Community in the territories forming part of the erstwhile State of Travancore.

2. Prior to July 1949 the State of Travancore was a princely state and the law in force in the territories of that State in regard to intestate succession to the property of members of the Indian Christian Community was the Travancore Christian Succession Act, .1092. This Act was promulgated by His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore with a view to consolidating and amending the rules of law applicable to intestate succession among Indian Christians in Travancore. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of this Act provided that "the usages of the various sections of the Christian community do not agree in all respects. Separate legislation for the various sections of Christians is neither desirable nor practicable and is likely to lead to much litigation and trouble. It is therefore thought necessary to enact a

common law for ail the various sections of Indian Christians." S.2 of the Act accordingly provided:

"Except as provided in this Act, or by any other law for the time being in force, the rules herein contained shall constitute the law of Travancore applicable to all cases of intestate succession among the members of the Indian Christian community".

Ss. 16 to 19 laid down the rules of law applicable to intestate succession among Indian Christians. The contention of the petitioners was that these rules discriminated against women by providing inter-alia that so far as succession to the immovable property of the intestate is concerned, a widow or mother becoming entitled under S.16,17,21 and 22 shall have only life interest terminable at death or on remarriage and that a daughter shall not be entitled to succeed to the property of the intestate in the same share as the son but that she will be entitled to one fourth the value of the share of the son or Rs. 5,000/-whichever is less and even to this amount she will not be entitled on intestacy, if Streedhanom was provided or promised to her by the intestate or in the life time of the intestate, either by his wife or husband or after the death of such wife or husband, by his or her heirs and on account of such discrimination these rules were unconstitutional and void as being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. On the view we are taking as regards the consequential effect of the extension of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to the territories of the former State of Travancore by virtue of Part-B States (Laws) Act. 1951. it is not necessary to examine this challenge to the constitutional validity of the rules laid down in the Travancore Christian Succession Act. 1092 and we do not therefore propose to refer to them in detail, as that would be a futile exercise and would unnecessarily burden the judgment. But it is relevant to point out that S.30 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 specifically excl