Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable to a case where a husband died intestate before the Act came into force and his widow inherited his properties, but was not possessed of those properties and died subsequent to the commencement of the Act.

OPINION OF THE FULL BENCH

VEERASWAMI, C.J. (9-10-1974) :- This reference comes before us because of the conflict of opinion on the question whether S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to a case where a husband died intestate before the Act came into force and his widow inherited his properties, but was not possessed of those properties and died subsequent to the commencement of the Act. One of us was a party to the reference. Since then has come Daya Singh v. Dhankaur AIR 1974 SC 665 which, in almost similar circumstances and after dealing with the conflict of opinion of some of the High Courts, answered the question in the affirmative.

2. Were the question res integra, it would have been open to debate and doubt as to whether S. 8 was intended to cover reversionary succession as in the instant case. The Act was, no doubt, intended to amend and codify the law regarding intestate succession. The intention of the Act was to cover, as far as possible, the entire field. That was why Sec. 4 gave the Act overriding effect Yet it visualises that any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act would still have force, if for any matter provision was not made in the Act and also any other law not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act, may continue to have force. Chapter II of the Act deals with intestate succession, first, in respect of an interest of a coparcener in coparcenary property and then with devolution of interest in coparcenary property and in the property of a tarvad, Tavazhi, Kutumba, Kavara or Illom. We have then S. 8 providing for general rues of succession in the case of males. It abolishes at one stoke the scheme of succession under the Hindu Law and provides for devolution of the property of male Hindu dying intestate, as provided therein read with the Schedule. This course was designed to give effect to the popular desire to prefer the closer relatives of the deceased such as those mentioned in Class I and Class II of the Schedule. Having provided for such a devolution of the property of a male Hindu dying intestate, rules also have been prescribed by the next five sections relating to the order of succession among the heirs in the Schedule, distribution of property among heirs of class I and Class II, the order of succession among agnates or cognates and computation of degrees. Section 14 deals with property of a female Hindu. Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. The Explanation to sub-sec. (1) is to the effect that for purposes at the sub-section, property includes both moveable and immoveable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance etc., sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 provides for certain exception to the rule of enlarging what was a limited estate of a female Hindu into a full and absolute estate. Consistent with the effect of S. 14. the next section provides for a drastically new rule of devolution of property of female Hindu dying intestate. But is this sweeping change in the scheme of succession only confined to limited property converted into absolute one in the hands of a woman? What is the effect in this context of the Explanation to S. 8 (1) on that matter vis-a-vis S. 14?

The order of succession and the manner of distribution among the heirs of a female Hindu are then provided for by S. 16 and special provisions respecting persons governed by the Marumakathayam and Aliyasanthana also have been made in S. 17. Then follow certain general provisions relating to succession as to the preference between full blood and half blood and mode of succession of two or more heirs who will take the property as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. The child in the womb is also taken care of. S. 20 provides that the child in the womb at the time of