Judgments: Govinda Menon J.-This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the properties comprised in schedules A, A-1, B,C,F.F-1 and F-2 of the Plaint and for possession of the properties comprised in schedules D and E or for Rs.1,996 being their value and for future mesne profits at Rs.4,000 per annum and decreed in part. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1 and 5. The plaintiff is the widow of one Subbaraya Aiyar who was the son of the first defendant, L. Bapu Iyer. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Bappu Ayyar while defendants 3 and 4 are the minor sons of the second defendant. The 5th defendant Seethalakshmi Ammal is another daughter of the first defendant. At the time of death of Subbaraya Aiyar on 24th August, 1947, Bappu Ayyar and his son Subbaraya Iyer were the sole undivided members of a joint Hindu family the second defendant and the fifth defendant having been married out of their family sometime prior to that. The plaintiff was married to Subbaraya Aiyar as his third wife in 1940. She, on the strength of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, Madras Act XXVI of 1947, has filed the present suit for recovery of possession of a half share in the entire joint family properties. As a result of the passing of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, Central Act XVIII of 1937, as amended by Act XI of 1938, it was provided by section 3, sub-section (2), that when a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu Law other than the Dayabhaga School or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), have, in the property, the same interest as he himself had. Sub-section (3) stated that any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of section 3 shall be a limited interest known as a Hindu Women’s estate, provided, however, that she shall have the right of claiming partition as a male owner.

The Federal Court of India in In re The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act1, held that in view of the provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935, by the time the Central Legislature came to pass Act XVIII of 1937, devolution of Agricultural lands had become a provincial subject and consequently the scope of Act XVIII of 1937, as amended by the Act XI of 1938, did not extend to succession to agricultural lands. Various Provinces took up this matter and passed necessary Acts by which the operation of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act was extended to agricultural lands as well, in their respective Provinces. Thus, for example, the Bombay Act XVII of 1942, the Bihar Act VI of 1942, and the United Provinces Act XI of 1944 came to be passed. The Madras Legislature also finding that it was not expedient to have two rules of succession one with regard to agricultural lands and the other for other species of property, passed the Madras Act XXVI of 1947 to remedy the decision of the Federal Court. The Bill which ultimately became the Act, namely the Madras Act XXVI of 1947, was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on the 26th November, 1947 and it became law on 18th December, 1947, having received the assent of the Governor on that date. By section 2 of this Act the term “Property” in the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Women’s Right to Property (Amendment) Act, 1938, was made to include “agricultural land” as well. Section 3 stated that “nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the property of any Hindu dying intestate before the 26th day of November, 1946” and there was an Explanation added to section 3 which was to the effect that a person shall be deemed to die intestate within the meaning of the section in respect of all property of which he has made a testamentary disposition which is capable of taking effect. It is therefo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document