The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'agricultural land' under the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, and the continued right to maintenance for widows despite the Act's provisions.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. These two connected appeals have been brought from a preliminary decree in a partition suit. One Ramachandra Rao died on 23rd February 1939, leaving him surviving his widow (plaintiff), two sons (defendants 1 and 2) and an unmarried daughter by his predeceased wife (defendant 3) and his mother (defendant 6). The sons and daughter being minors were represented by their maternal grandfather defendant 4 who was appointed as their guardian for the suit. Defendant 5 was a stranger with whom Ramachandra Rao carried on business in partnership as retailer of fancy goods under the style of Friends & Co. Soon after the death of Ramachandra Rao there were magisterial proceedings and inventories were prepared of the moveables in the house including the articles belonging to Friends & Co., which had its shop in the front rooms of the same premises. The plaintiff sued for partition and delivery of a third share of Ramachandra Raos properties which were set out in five schedules annexed to the plaint. As Ramachandra Rao died undivided from his sons, the plaintiffs right to a share could only be based on the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, and though the claim was originally made in respect of all the properties it Was conceded that she was not entitled to a share in the agricultural lands forming part of the estate, as it has since been held by the Federal Court that the Act does not operate to regulate succession to agricultural land in the Governors Provinces but operates only in respect of other kinds of property: see In Re Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act In the absence of parallel legislation by the Legislature of this province in regard to agricultural land this decision has given rise to new problems in apportioning or allocating, among the full and partial cosharers, the common obligations to be borne by the estate as a whole, such as claims of creditors, maintenance holders, and unmarried daughters, and some of those problems arise for consideration in the present case. The first contention raised by Mr. Raghava Rao for the plaintiff relates to a mango-grove (item 36, Schedule A) forming part of the estate. The Court below negatived the plaintiffs claim to a share therein on the ground that it is agricultural land succession to which is not regulated by the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act. While it has been held in the decision already referred to that succession to agricultural land is a subject within the exclusive competence of the Provincial Legislature, there is no indication in the judgment as to what is agricultural land within the meaning of entries No. 21 of List 2 and No. 7 of List 3 of Schedule 7, Government of India Act, 1935. No case throwing light on the point has been brought to our notice though numerous decisions were cited as to the connotation of the term "agricultural" or "agriculture" occurring in various other enactments relating, for the most part, to tenancy legislation in this and other provinces. Many of these statutes contain their own definitions of the term and even where there is no definition the term had to be interpreted in the light of the object and general policy underlying the particular enactment and of other indications afforded by it. It seems to us, therefore, not profitable to discuss in detail any of those decisions as they cannot afford any useful guidance in the interpretation of the expression "agricultural land" in the Constitution Act. That Act has not defined the term which has accordingly to be interpreted in its ordinary sense controlled, no doubt, by the context of the Act.

2. It is somewhat remarkable that a word in such common use as "agriculture" should have given rise to a. great divergence of judicial opinion in regard to its interpretation. (His Lordship then referred and explained the decisions reported in Murugeaa v. Chinnathambi (1901) 24 Mad. 421, Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa A.I.R. 1915 Mad. 781, Pavadai v. Ramasami A.I.