The central legal point established in the judgment is that Act II of 1929 does not have retrospective operation and does not apply to cases of Hindu males who died intestate before its coming into force.

1. This is an appeal preferred by one Krishna Chettiar against the order of the District Judge of North Arcot for the grant of a succession certificate in favour of the respondents in O.P. No. 31 of 1930. The last male owner was Ponnusami alias Subbu Chetty who died unmarried in or about 1916. His mother (Muthammal) succeeded to his estate as a limited owner under the Hindu Law and died on 14th September, 1929. The present respondents who are the sisters of the last male owner claiming to be the nearest heirs by virtue of Act II of 1929 sought for the issue of a succession certificate in their favour, in order to enable them to collect the debts clue to the estate of the last male owner. This present appellant Krishna Chettiar opposed this application, contending that under the Hindu Law, he as the paternal uncle of the last male owner Ponnusami was entitled to succeed to the estate on the death of his mother and that Act II of 1929 would not apply to this case. The learned District Judge held that as sisters, the respondents have a preferential right over the paternal uncle, as the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929) had come into force when the last limited owner (Muthammal) died. The correctness of that finding is challenged in this appeal.

2. This appeal raises an important question of law. This question does not appear to have come up for decision in this High Court till now. The point for consideration is, whether this Act has retrospective operation in the sense that the change of law introduced in this Act affects also the estate of persons who have died before the Act. As this Act is not expressed to come into operation on a particular day, it must be deemed to have come into force on the day on which it received the assent of the Governor-General, i.e., on 21st February, 1929. The preamble of the Act is as follows:

Whereas it is expedient to alter the order in which certain heirs of a Hindu male dying intestate are entitled to succeed to his estate; It is hereby enacted as follows:

3. By Section 1 of the Act, it is made applicable to the whole of British India and to the property of Hindu males governed by the Law of Mitakshara not held in coparcenary and not disposed of by will. The change effected in the order of succession of certain heirs is declared in Section 2, whereby a sons daughter, daughters daughter, sister and sisters son should, in the order so specified, rank next after a fathers father and before a fathers brother.

4. The question is, in respect of whose estate or property the altered order of succession among the heirs as fixed by this Act should apply. There is nothing in Section 1 to clarify the doubt whether it covers also cases of male owners who died even before the passing of this Act. There is nothing explicitly stated to indicate that the Act has such a retrospective operation. When there is some doubt in this respect in the enacting part, we may legitimately look to the wording of the preamble of the statute for solving the doubt. The following passage in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 7th edition, at pages 37 and 38 is instructive:

The preamble of a statute has been said to be a good means of finding out its meaning, and as it were a key to the understanding of it; and as it usually states or professes to state the whole object and intention of the legislature in passing the enactment, it may legitimately be consulted to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one or to keep the effect of the Act within its real scope, whenever the enacting part is in any of these respects open to doubt.

5. In this Act, the preamble says that it is in respect of the estate of a Hindu male dying intestate. According to the plain meaning of the words employed, it seems to us that the Act is intended to apply to cases of Hindu intestate males who died after the passing of this Act. We can perceive no ambiguity in the preamble. The expression "