Kuppuswami Asari vs Manickasari

Viswanatha Sastri, J.—The question that arises for decision in this case is whether the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act II of

1929 has any application to succession to the stridhanam property of a Hindu lady or whether the succession is governed by the ordinary rule of

Hindu law unaffected by the provisions of Act II of 1929.

One Rajammal was the last owner of the property now in dispute. Her husband, Arunachala Asari had a sister and a sister''s son from whom the

plaintiff has purchased the property. The defendants set up title of the paternal uncle''s son of Arunachala Asari as heir to the property of

Rgjammal. The question is whether the sister and sister''s son of Arunachala Asari could be deemed to be stridhanam heirs of Rajammal in

preference to paternal uncle''s son of Arunachala. If the ordinary Hindu law of succession were to apply it is clear that Rajammal having died

without issue, her husband and his sapindas would be the heirs to her stridhanam property. The question is whether in finding out succession to

stridhanam property of Rajammal we have to adopt the original rule of Hindu law regulating succession to stridhanam property and find out the

husband''s sapindas according to the ordinary rules of Hindu law or whether we have to incorporate the amendment introduced by the Amending

Act II of 1929 in the table of inheritance prescribed by Hindu law and ascertain the sapindas of Arunachala on that basis. This question has

recently been considered by a Bench of this Court in Manda Mahalakshmamma Vs. Mantravadi Suryanarayana Sastri and Others, . Their

Lordships held that the amending Act II of 1929 was expressly limited both in its preamble and in Sub-section (2) of Section 1 to succession to the

property of a male and it cannot be applied to a case where the question for decision is who are the stridhanam heirs of a Hindu lady. Their

Lordships relied upon the opinion of the learned editor of the 10th edition of Mayne''s Hindu law and on the decision in Sakuntalabai v. Court of

Wards ILR (1942) Nag. 629 and expressed their dissent from the decision of a single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Mt. Charjo v. Dinanath

AIR 1937 Lah. 196 and of the Bombay High Court in Shamrao v. Raghunandan ILR (1939) Bom. 228. We respectfully agree with the reasoning

of the learned Judges in the decision in Manda Mahalakshmamma Vs. Mantravadi Suryanarayana Sastri and Others, which we find has been

referred to with approval in a subsequent decision of the Patna High Court in Dulhin Talukraj Kuar v. Babui Bacha Kuar ILR (1947) Pat. 150.

The result is that the rule of succession to the stridhanam property laid down in the Mitakshara School of Hindu law has not been in any way

altered by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929). This is the only point that has been argued in this Letters Patent Appeal.

The matter is covered by the previous decision of this Court and we see no reason for departing from it.

In the result the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.