The judgment establishes the principle that the Indian Succession Act adopts laws for the time being in force relating to intestate succession, and the court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of S.6 of Act III of 1951 and S.29 of the Indian Succession Act.

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit is for partition of properties left by one Joseph Kathanar who died intestate on 24.12.1952. Plaintiffs are the sons of a deceased sister of Joseph Kathanar. He had three brothers and two sisters of whom only one brother (the first defendant) and one sister (the second defendant) are now alive. Defendants 3 and 4 are the children and defendants 5 to 9 the grand-children of a deceased brother, Pylee, and defendants 10 to 12 the children of the other deceased brother, Ithappiri. Defendants 13 to 19 were impleaded as persons in occupation of some of the properties. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional defendants 20 to 23. According to the plaintiffs they are entitled to one-fifth share in the properties, and the suit is for partition of that share.

2. The second defendant supported the plaintiffs and contended that she also was entitled to one-fifth share in the properties. Defendants 3 and 11 contended, inter alia, that under the Travancore Christian Succession Act the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the properties of deceased Joseph Kathanar. The fifth defendant also contended that the plaintiffs were not the heirs of deceased Joseph Kathanar and that the two sisters of Joseph Kathanar have been married away and given their streedhanam long before the death of Joseph Kathanar. The 21st defendant also contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the properties of deceased Joseph Kathanar.

3. The first issue raised in the case was: "Are the plaintiffs heirs of deceased Joseph Kathanar? What is the law that governs the distribution of the assets of Joseph Kathanar?" This issue was tried as a preliminary issue. According to the plaintiffs, the law that governs succession to the properties of deceased Joseph Kathanar is the Indian Succession Act XXXIX of 1925, while according to defendants 3, 5,11 and 21, the law that applies to the case is the Travancore Christian Succession Act, II of 1092. The Court below held that it was the Travancore Christian Succession Act that applied to the case. The Indian Succession Act is one of the Central Acts extended to the Travancore-Cochin State by the Part B States (Laws) Act, III of 1951, which came into force on 1.4.1951. S.6 of that Act (III of 1951) provides:

"If immediately before the appointed day there is in force in any Part B State any law corresponding to any of the Acts or Ordinances now extended to that State that law shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, stand repealed It...................................... .

It is not provided in Act III of 1951 that the Travancore Christian Succession Act II of 1092, will continue in force notwithstanding the introduction of the Indian Succession Act into this State. The question for decision is whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act must be deemed to have been repealed by Act III of 1951, and whether Part V of the Indian Succession Act relating to intestate succession has taken its place. If the Travancore Christian Succession Act is law corresponding to the Indian Succession Act there can be no doubt that the former must be deemed to have been repealed by Act III of 1951. According to the plaintiffs, the Travancore Christian Succession Act is law corresponding to Part V of the Indian Succession Act relating to intestate succession. According to the contesting defendants, the Travancore Christian Succession Act is kept in tact by S.29(2) of the Indian Succession Act and is therefore not law corresponding to Part V of that Act relating to intestate succession.

4. S.29 of the Indian Succession Act reads as follows:

"29.(1). This Part shall not apply to any intestacy occurring before the first day of January 1866, or to the property of any Hindu, Mohammadan, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina.

(2). Save as provided in sub-s. (1) or by any other law for the time being in force