Jayakar.-This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 29th August, 1941, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of the First Civil Judge of Saharanpur, District Saharanpur, dated the 10th January, 1938.

The parties are Hindus subject to the Mitakshara Law of Benares School, and this appeal involves the construction of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act No. 2 of 1929) which is hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. The Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day. It received the assent of the Governor-General on the 21st February, 1929, and under the provisions of section 5 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, (Act No. 10 of 1897) it came into operation immediately on the expiration of 20th February, 1929.

The description and preamble of the Act make it clear that the object of the Act is to alter the order of succession of certain persons therein mentioned, namely, a son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, sister and sister’s son, and to rank them as heirs in the specified order of succession next after a father’s father and before the father’s brother.

The Act thus amends the old order of succession in Hindu Law by introducing certain persons as heirs, who had no such place according to the ordinary interpretation of Mitakshara Law. The Act is one of the several measures enacted during recent times, in a reformative spirit, with a view to bringing the ancient rules of Hindu succession into conformity with what are regarded as the changing conditions and sentiments of present day Hindu society. It therefore selects certain relatives and gives them a preferential place in the order of succession, irrespective of their sex, over more remote relatives, on the ground that judged by the pure test of blood relationship to the deceased owner, they are nearer heirs than those superseded by the provisions of the Act.

The question for determination in this appeal is whether on a true construction of the Act, it applies only to the case of a Hindu male dying intestate on or after the 21st February, 1929 (the date of its operation), or whether it also applies to the case of such a male dying intestate before the date, if he was succeeded by a female heir who died after that date. The genealogical table relating to the parties in the case is as follows:

The facts giving rise to this litigation are as follows:

There was a partition by means of an arbitration award between Shambhu Nath, Ganpat Rai, Shankar Lal and Dwarka Dass. At that time Kanhaiya Lai and Sant Lal appear to have been dead. Under the award, Shambu Nath received as his share a certain set of property and a half share in another set of property. On Shambu Nath’s death, his only surviving son, Dharam Das, succeeded to his properties, Sumer Chand having predeceased Shambu Nath. Dharam Das died in 1922, before the date of the Act, leaving neither a widow nor descendants. His mother Mst Chaman Devi, succeeded him as his heir, taking a Hindu widow’s estate ‘He also left four sisters, Msts. Sabz Kali, Raj Kali, Anarkali, and Lilavati. Chaman Devi died in July 1936 (after the date of the Act), when the succession to the estate of Dharam Das opened.

Anar Kali, respondent No. 1, one of Dharam Das’s sisters instituted the present suit in the Court of the Civil Judge of Shaharanpur, against her sisters (respondents 2 3 and 4) and the present appellants and Uggar Sen (Respondent No. 5), her brother’s collaterals, together with Mst. Raji, the widow of one of such collaterals. In her plaint she alleged that Dharam Das was the last full owner of the plaint properties and that on his death his mother, Chaman Devi, took a widow’s estate and that on her death in July, 1936, her daughters (respondents 1 to 4), as sisters of Dharam Das, became heirs to his estate under the provisions of the Act and entered into proprietary possession of the properties in the plaint. She claimed that she had a one-fourth sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document