The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Travancore Succession Act, 1092 in a succession dispute involving Christians.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in O.S.No.213/2019 on the files of Munsiff Court, Pala. The respondents are the defendants in the suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on admission. I shall refer the parties as plaintiff and defendants.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit contending that the parties are Christians and are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. According to the plaintiff, plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to the father of the plaintiff by name Chacko, S/o. Mattathilaya Valiyaparambil Chacko. It is the further contention that Chacko obtained absolute ownership over the property covered by partition deed No.339/1100 and sale deed No.3482/1103 of Meenachil SRO. The contention of the plaintiff further is that Chacko died intestate and his mother also died. Therefore, the plaintiff, who is governed by the Indian Succession Act, is entitled for 1/5th share over the plaint schedule property.

4. Defendants 1 to 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27 and 23 filed written statement and the crux of their contentions is that Chacko died in the year 1938 and therefore, in the matter of succession, the parties are governed by Travancore Succession Act, 1092 and Indian Succession Act has no application in the instant case.

5. The trial court raised necessary issues and recorded evidence. During trial PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. DW1 to DW7 were examined and Exts.B1 to B25 were marked. Exts.X1 and X2 were also marked. Finally the trial court found that Chacko died in the year 1938 and relying on Exts.X1 and X2 held that the parties are governed by the Travancore Succession Act, 1092. Accordingly, suit was dismissed. The trial court verdict was assailed in A.S No.8/2022 before the Sub Court, Pala, but the appellate court also concurred the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

6. Even though the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Chacko died in the year 1953 and, therefore, Indian Succession Act, 1925 would apply in this matter, it is discernible from the verdicts of the trial court that the plaintiff never raised pleadings in the plaint that Chacko died in the year 1953 and no evidence also let in, in this regard.

7. The trial court as well as the appellate court relied on Exts.X1 and X2, copies of the death register and the details of Almayar of Cherpunkal Church, to hold that Chacko died in the year 1938. In the decision reported in [AIR 1986 SC 1011], Mary Roy v. State of Kerala & Ors. the Apex Court held as under :

“So far as Indian Christian are concerned, Chapter II of Part V contains rules relating to intestate succession and a fortiori on the extension of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to Part B State of Travancore Cochin, the rule relating to intestate succession enacted in Chapter II of Part V would be applicable equally to Indian Christians in the territories of the former State of Travancore. It cannot be said that S.29, sub-sec. (2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 saved the provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 and that therefore despite the extension of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to Part B State of Travancore Cochin, the Travancore Christan Succession Act, 1092 continued to apply to Indian Christians in the territories of the erstwhile State of Travancore. S.6 cannot be overlooked in such a case. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 was extended to Part B State of Travancore-Cochin by virtue of S.3 of PartB States (Laws) Act, 1951 and if therefore, there was in force in Part B State of Travancore-Cochin any law corresponding to the Indian Succession Act, 1925 immediately prior to 1st April, 1951, such law would stand wholly repealed.

In such a case, the continuance of Travancore Act cannot be justified on the ground that, the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 was not a law corresponding to the Indian Succession Act, 1925 since the latter Act had a much wider coverage in that it dealt no