Ramachandra Iyer, J.-

This appeal has been posted before us for disposal as one of the questions that arise in the appeal is the soundness of the contention that the decision reported in Parappa v. Nagamma2, has impliedly overruled the decision reported in Subba Rao v. Krishna Prasadam1 .

The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: In the village of Kavanoor in South Arcot district there lived two brothers Chidambaram Pillai and Saminatha Pillai, as members of a joint Hindu family. Chidambaram Pillai is stated to have become insane by about the year 1920 and he died on 6th July, 1948, leaving his widow Chellammal. Chellammal filed O.S. No. 20 of 1949 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, for partition of the joint family properties claiming rights under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937. Saminatha Pillai was the first defendant and his wife and daughter were second and third defendants respectively. Defendants 4 to 15 were alienees from Saminatha Pillai. Saminatha Pillai died pending the suit and in addition to the second defendant, his grandsons, defendants 16 and 17 who claimed under a will alleged to have been executed by him were impleaded as his legal representatives. The defendants contested the claim on various grounds which it is now unnecessary to detail.

The learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, passed a preliminary decree for partition and allotment of a half share to Chellammal in the properties covered by Schedules 2 to 5. Defendants 2, 3, 16 and 17 filed this appeal in this Court, impleading Chellammal as the first respondent and the alienees as other respondents.

During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, on 7th November, 1951, Chellammal adopted to her deceased husband a minor boy Govindarajan, who has since been impleaded as the fourteenth respondent. The adoption is evidenced by a registered document of that date. Nearly 19 months thereafter, i.e., on 10th June, 1953, Chellammal died. C.M.P. No. 8001 of 1953 was filed on 3rd July, 1953, on behalf of minor Govindarajan to bring him on record as legal representative of the deceased first respondent, Chellammal. The appellants contested the application and denied the truth and validity of the adoption and claimed that the right of Chellammal did not survive to the adopted son. They also set up a will by Saminatha Pillai in favour of appellants 1, 3 and 4 as a bar to the claim by the adopted son. Rajagopala Iyengar, J., who heard the application called for a report from the Subordinate Judge as to the truth and validity of the adoption. The learned Subordinate Judge enquired into the matter fully and submitted a report to this Court that the adoption was true and valid. Minor Govindarajan was thereupon directed to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased 1st Respondent subject to such objections as may be advanced at the time of the hearing of the appeal, and the memorandum of appeal was amended by impleading him as the 14th respondent.

C.M.P. No. 878 of 1954 was also filed on behalf of the 14th respondent under Order 1, rule 10, Order 22, rule 10 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to permit him to defend the above appeal in the place of the original first respondent. Rajagopala Iyengar, J., who ordered C.M.P. No. 8001 of 1953, held that no orders were necessary on this application. The appeal came up for hearing before the Honourable the Chief Justice and Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. An objection was taken that as Chellammal had only a limited right under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act of 1937, there was no right in her which would survive in favour of any legal representative of hers and that therefore the decree for partition should be set aside. In support of the contention reliance was placed on the decision reported in Subba Rao v. Krishna Prasadam1 , wherein it was held that the estate which the widow takes under the Act does not on her’ death devolve on her husband’s heirs, and the right of the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document