The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 overrides the Hindu Law rules relating to succession and disqualification, including the disqualification of a widow on the ground of unchastity.

VEERASWAMI, C.J.:- The defendants are the appellants. The respondents brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties and for mesne profits. He purchased the properties from Rajamani, the widow of one Narayanaswami, who died in 1948 leaving his sons Prasanna and Venugopal by his first wife Chinnammal. That lady had predeceased her husband. Narayanaswami also left behind him his brother Krishnaswami. The sale deed executed by Rajamani directed the respondent to pay out of the purchase price certain debts of Venugopal which, however, have not up-to-date been paid. Prasanna and Venugopal died in 1953 and 1957. Even during their lifetime Rajamani instituted O.S.34 of 1953 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for partition of the properties described in the plaint Schedules A to C and for delivery to her of a 1/6th share on the ground that those properties belonged to the joint family consisting of Narayanaswami and his brother Krishnaswami. That suit ended in a compromise in terms of which a decree followed. The stipulation there was that Rajamani should be paid a sum of Rs.16000 in consideration of her giving up of her rights as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the compromise. After the death of Prasanna and Venugopal, Rajamani claimed to have succeeded to the estate of Venugopal as the widow of his father under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In defence to the suit various contentions were raised, but in the second appeal we are concerned with three questions.

The first of the questions relates to the scope of the compromise in O.S. No.34 of 1953. The appellants maintain that as a result of this compromise. Rajamani had divested herself of her lights in the suit properties. (His Lordship discussed the facts and proceeded).

It is no doubt true that the opening phraseology in paragraph 5 refers to "in so far as it concers the defendants"; but that should be understood in the context and. so understood, it is clear that what concerned the defendants in that suit was the claim of the plaintiff in the suit, namely, a share in the joint family properties. That being so, the lower appellate Court was right in its view that the compromise did not stand in the way of Rajamani succeeding to Venugopal's exclusive properties.

2. The second question is this. The courts below have concurrently found that, even during the lifetime of her husband. Rajamani left him and lived in open and notorious unchastity. The appellants contend that this disqualified Rajamani from inheriting the properties of Venugopal. We are unable to accede to this contention. Unchastity of a widow is, under the Hindu law, undoubtedly a disqualification. But the point is whether that disqualification would any longer apply after the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force. Rajamani succeeded to Venugopal's properties as his father's widow. Section 4 of the Act gives to its provision an overriding effect. It says that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act 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 shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in the Act. It also provides that

any other law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act. In accordance with the provisions of Section 8, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve, according to the provisions in Chapter II of the Act, firstly upon the heirs specified in class I of the schedule and secondly, if there is no heir of class I then upon the heirs specified in class II of that schedule. S.8 is in substitution of the Hindu Law of succession relating to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate. Once the Act has provided for that, as enacted by S.4(1), the rul