JUDGMENT

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.51/2020 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Irinjalakuda, which arise out of O.S.No.1284/2018 on the file of Additional Musniff Court, Irinjalakuda.

2. The suit was one for partition filed by the mother with respect to the property belonged to her deceased son Suresh. The defendants are the wife and children of the deceased son. (For convenience parties would hereinafter be referred as per their status before the trial court). The son died intestate and parties are governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the Act ) and plaintiff claimed 1/4th share out of the schedule property with share of profits.

3. Defendants filed written statement contending that they are the only legal heirs of deceased Suresh and plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property in view of the subsequent development of law. It is denied that the defendants let out the building on monthly rent of Rs.4,500/-. The house is in a dilapidated condition. It is also contended that the properties are not in joint possession.

4. PW1 examined and Exts.A1 to A3 marked from the side of the plaintiff. DW1 examined from the side of the defendants.

5. The learned Munsiff on evaluation of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced found that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable even after the amendment to Section 15 as far as the succession to the property of Hindu male is concerned. It is also found that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the cut and removal of trees or that the defendants received any rent. Learned Munsiff allowed the suit declaring that plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share of the plaint schedule property.

6. Against which, defendants filed appeal as A.S.No.51/2020. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge found that Section 15(2)(c) applies only on the death of a female Hindu. As per Section 8 of the Act the plaintiff-mother is entitled to get ¼ share of the plaint schedule property and hence it has been found that even after the amendment of Section 15, Section 8 applies to succession to the property of a Hindu male and Section 15 applies only to the property of Hindu female and accordingly appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/defendants approach this Court in Appeal.

7. This Court at the time of admission raised the following substantial questions of law:

1. Does Section 8 r/w schedule to Hindu Succession Act, 1955 survive after the introduction of Section 15(2)(c)? If so, does not Section 15(2)(c) limit the claim of the mother of predeceased Hindu son to his property to a life estate and deprive her of a share?

2. Is not the right of the mother eclipsed by the amendment, depriving her right to seek a partition? Consequently, can she enforce a metes and bounds partition of the property as against the wife and daughters of her son?

8. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 8 of the Act has no application in view of amendment to Section 15 by introducing Section 15(2) (c) by Act 17 of 2016. It is contended that mother of predeceased son stands excluded from inheriting his property and Section 15(2)(c) repeals and nullifies the right conferred on her under Section 8 of the Act. So according to him the object of Section 15(2)(c) was to put shackles on a mother's right to inherit any property of a predeceased son.

9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff - mother on the other hand would contend that Section 15(2)(c) has no application in the present case and it will come into play only on the death of the plaintiff and according to her after her death the defendants alone can inherit the property in view of Section

15(2)(c).

10. The plaint schedule property admittedly stands in the name of Suresh, the deceased son of plaintiff. Section 8 of the Act deals with general rules of succession in the case of males, as per which the property of a male Hindu died intestat