{"id":30455,"date":"1979-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979"},"modified":"2018-07-30T19:01:46","modified_gmt":"2018-07-30T13:31:46","slug":"sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979","title":{"rendered":"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 198, \t\t 1980 SCR (1) 404<\/div>\n
Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n
Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSUNDARI AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAXMI AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/08\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  198\t\t  1980 SCR  (1) 404\n 1980 SCC  (1)\t19\n\n\nACT:\n     Madras Aliyasantana  Act, 1949  (Madras Act IX of 1949)\nSections 3(b)  (i), (ii)  (f), (h),  36(3) &  (5) read\twith\nSection 7(2),  17, 30  of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30\nof  1956)-Devolution   of  the\t property  allotted   to   a\n'nissanthathi kavaru'  under the  Aliyasantana law  and\t its\neffect on the Hindu Succession Act, explained.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The parties  to the  litigation leading  to this appeal\nare governed  by  the  Aliyasantana  law  prevalent  in\t the\ndistrict of  South Kanara.  They were  members of  a Kutumba\ndescended from\ta common  ancestress by\t name Manjekke.\t One\nParameshwari and  her son  and daughter\t instituted original\nsuit No.  91 of\t 1950 before  the Court\t of the\t Subordinate\nJudge South Kanara for partition of properties in accordance\nwith the  provisions of\t Madras Aliyasantana  Act, 1949. The\nsuit was  dismissed, but  on appeal  the High Court reversed\nit. The\t High Court passed a preliminary decree on 28-6-1961\nand remanded  the suit for further proceedings. In the trial\na joint memo was filed by the parties on 25th September 1963\naccepting the shares as per the memo. Defendants 22 to 24 in\nthe suit  were allotted\t 85176 shares  out  of\ta  total  of\n6,15,264 shares.\n     Defendants\t 22,23,24  were\t all  male  members  of\t the\n'Kutumba' and  were 'Nissanthathi  kavaru'. On\tthe death of\nthe 23rd and 24th defendants their legal Representatives who\nwere brought  on record\t filed R.I.A. No. 2266\/66 and R.I.A.\n2259\/66 respectively claiming that out of the share allotted\nto  the\t  Kavarus  of\tdefendants  22\t to  24,   one-third\nrepresenting the  share or  interest of\t the 23rd  and\t24th\ndefendants be  allotted to them. The petition was opposed on\nthe ground  that each  one of  the defendants 22, 23, and 24\nwas a  separate 'Nissanthathi  Kavaru' and  on the  death of\neach of\t the defendants\t 24 and\t 23, his  share or  interest\ndevolved upon the 'Santhathi Kavaru' nearest to him to which\ndefendants 11,\t12 and\t16 belonged.  The plea\tof the\t22nd\ndefendant was  that all\t the three  defendants 22, 23 and 24\nconstituted one\t single Nissanthathi  Kavaru to which, under\nthe  preliminary  decree  one  single  or  joint  share\t was\nallotted and, therefore, the said share survived to the last\nsurviving  member  thereof  (22nd  defendant)  and  that  no\ndevolution on  a 'Santhathi Kavaru' under sub-section (5) of\nSection\t 36   is  possible   until  the\t  last\t member\t  of\n'Nissanthathi Kavaru' viz. the 22nd defendant dies.\n     The trial\tcourt found  that in  the High\tCourt decree\ndated 20-6-1961\t defendants 22\tto 24  were allotted  shares\njointly. It  further held  that defendants  22,\t 23  and  24\nformed three 'Nissanthathi Kavarus' as their mother was dead\nat the\ttime of\t the filling  of the  suit and partition was\neffected and there was no undivided interest in the property\nwhen they  died so  as to  attract the provisions of section\n7(2) of the Hindu Succession Act.\n     The High  Court on\t appeal\t held  that  when  the\t24th\ndefendant  died\t  he  had   an\tundivided  interest  in\t the\nproperties of the Kavaru of himself and defendants\n405\n22 and 23 and that the said undivided interest quantified as\nprovided by  the explanation to sub-section (2) of section 7\nof the\tHindu Succession  Act and would devolve by intestate\nsuccession under the Succession Act. Similarly when the 23rd\ndefendant died\the had an undivided interest in the property\njointly belonging  to himself  and the\t22nd defendant. That\nundivided interest also get quantified under Section 7(2) of\nthe Hindu Succession Act. The High Court allowed the appeals\nholding that the property descended according to the rule of\nintestate succession contained in Hindu Succession Act.\n     Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The three  defendants were allotted jointly a\nshare  in   the\t partition.   In  the\tsuit  filed  by\t one\nParameshwari defendants\t 22, 23\t and 24 were made parties as\nthey belonged to the Kavaru of their mother. They pleaded in\nthe written  statement for  the allotment  of their share in\nthe event  of partition.  Moreover in  the joint  memo their\njoint share  was shown\tas 85, 176 out of the total share of\n615,264. [409E, 410C-D]\n     2. The  three defendants  have enjoyed  the interest as\nNissanthathi Kavaru,  and on  partition are entitled only to\nlife interest  in the  properties  allotted  to\t them  under\nsection 36(3)  of the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949. [411-C-\nD]\n     3. In view of the over-riding provision in Section 4 of\nthe Hindu Succession Act, it is clear that the provisions of\nAliyasantana Act,  whether customary or statutory will cease\nto apply,  in so  far as  they\tare  inconsistent  with\t the\nprovisions of  the Hindu  Succession Act,  which  came\tinto\nforce on  17th\tJune  1956.  Therefore,\t the  devolution  by\ntestamentary or\t intestate succession  is  under  the  Hindu\nSuccession Act. [411G-H]\n     The explanation  to Section  7(2) of  the Act  provides\nthat the  interest in  the property of the Kutumba or Kavaru\nof a  Hindu shall  be deemed to be the share in the property\nof the\tKutumba or  Kavaru, as\tthe case  may be, that would\nhave fallen  to him  or her  if a partition of that property\nper capita had been made immediately before his or her death\namong all  the members of the Kutumba or Kavaru, as the case\nmay be,\t then living whether he or she was entitled to claim\nsuch partition\tor not\tunder the  Aliyasantana law and such\nshare shall  be deemed\tto have\t been allotted to him or her\nabsolutely. The\t result\t of  the  Explanation  is  that\t the\nundivided interest  in the  property of\t the  Hindu  in\t the\nAliyasantana Kutumba or Kavaru shall devolve as provided for\nunder the  Hindu Succession  Act and  that the\tshare of the\nHindu  shall   be  deemed  to  have  been  allotted  to\t him\nabsolutely. [412G-H, 413A]\n     The Explanation  to section  30 of the Hindu Succession\nAct provides  that a  member of\t an Aliyasantana  Kutumba or\nKavaru can  dispose of his interest in Kutumba properties by\na will,\t while under  the Aliyasantana\tlaw  the  individual\ncannot do  so. Explanation to section 30(1) enables the male\nHindu in  a Kutumba or Kavaru which is deemed to be property\ncapable of  being disposed of by him Sections 7(2) and 30(1)\nwould relate  to undivided  interest in\t the property of the\nKutumba or Kavaru. [413B-D]\n     Section 17\t of the\t Hindu Succession Act deals with the\nintestate succession  to the  separate property\t of a  Hindu\nmale under the Aliyasantana law. It provides that section 8,\n10, 15 and 23 shall have effect with certain modifica-\n406\ntions in relation to persons who would have been governed by\nthe Aliyasantana  law. Section\t8 provides that the property\nof a  male Hindu  dying intestate shall devolve as specified\nin the\tsection. The  succession to  the property  of a male\nHindu belonging\t to a  Kutumba or Kavaru of Aliyasantana law\ndying intestate\t would be  governed  by\t the  provisions  of\nsection 8  as modified\tby section 17, the effect being that\nthe succession\tas provided  for under\tthe Aliyasantana law\nwould not  be applicable  to Hindu  females under section 10\nwhich provides\tfor the distribution of property among heirs\nin class  1 of the Schedule. Section 15 provides the general\nrule of succession in the case of Hindu females. The rule as\nto the\tsuccession is  also made  applicable to Hindu female\nunder the  Aliyasantana law which provides for succession of\nthe separate  property of a Hindu male and a female. Section\n14 of  the Act\tenlarges the  property possessed by a female\nHindu (and  not a  Hindu male)\twhether acquired  before  or\nafter the  commencement\t of  the  Hindu\t Succession  Act  by\nproviding that\tshe will  hold the  property as a full owner\nand not\t as a limited owner. The Hindu male will be entitled\nonly to\t the limited  rights as\t provided for  under the law\napplicable to  him. According  to the  provisions of section\n36(5) of  the Aliyasantana  law, the  property\tallotted  to\nNissanthathi Kavaru  at a partition is enjoyed by it only as\na life\tinterest and at the time of the death of the last of\nits members shall devolve upon the Kutumba. But when a Hindu\ngoverned by  the Aliyasantana  law dies\t possessed of a life\ninterest, after\t his death  the property  devolves under the\nHindu Succession  Act to the heirs as provided for under the\nsaid Act  and not  under the  Aliyasantana Act and therefore\nwould not revert back to the Kutumba. [413H, 414A-C, 418D-E]\n     4. The effect of the Provisions of the Hindu Succession\nAct is\tthat after  the\t coming\t into  force  of  the  Hindu\nSuccession Act\tan  undivided  interest\t of  a\tHindu  would\ndevolve as  provided by\t section 7(2),\twhile in the case of\nseparate property  it would devolve on his heirs as provided\nfor in\tthe Hindu Succession Act. Even though a Nissanthathi\nKavaru might  have a  limited interest\twhich would  in turn\ndevolve upon a Kutumba or the nearest Santhathi Kavaru under\nSection 36(5)  of the  Aliyasantana Act, the devolution will\nbe under the Hindu Succession Act, as the mode of devolution\nprescribed under  section 36(5) of the Aliyasantana Act, has\nto give\t way to\t the provisions\t of section  8 of  the Hindu\nSuccession  Act,   which  prescribed  a\t different  mode  of\nsuccession. [414G-H, 415-A]\n     In this  case,  the  property  has\t been  found  to  be\nundivided as between defendants 22, 23 and 24 and therefore,\nthe position  is that  on the  death  of  each\tone  of\t the\ndefendants his\tundivided  interest  would  devolve  on\t his\nheirs. [415B]\n     The contention  that there\t was a division in status on\nthe filing  of suit  for partition or that as the mother was\ndead there were separate Kavarus is not correct. In the case\nof defendants  22, 23  and 24  who are male the Kavaru would\nmean the  Kavaru of  the mother\t of that  male under section\n3(b) (ii)  of the  Aliyasantana Act.  The  male\t by  himself\ncannot be  a Kavaru  under the\tdefinition. By virtue of the\nExplanation to\tSection 35(2)  a male member of a Kutumba is\ndeemed to  be a\t Kavaru for the purpose of Chapter VI, which\ndeals with  partition of Kutumba. In this case, the suit was\nfiled by Parameshwari and her two children for the partition\nand separate  possession  of  their  share  of\tthe  Kutumba\nproperty. When\tthe suit  is not  filed by a male member the\nprovisions of  Chapter VI will not be applicable. The deemed\nprovision is  only applicable  in considering  the right  to\nclaim partition. Further\n407\nwhen the  plaintiff filed  the suit, there is no presumption\nthat there  was a division in status of all the Kavarus that\nconstituted the\t Kutumba. The  filing of  the suit  will  no\ndoubt result  in the  disruption of  the joint status of the\nplaintiff\/Kavaru, but  the other  Kavarus may continue to be\njoint in the Kutumba. Whether the other Kavarus continued to\nbe joint  in the Kavaru or not is a question of fact. [415E-\nH, 416A]\n     Jalaja Shedthi  and Ors.  v. Lakshmi  Shedthi and Ors.,<\/a>\n[1974] 1  S.C.R. 707,  and Sundara Adappa and Ors. v. Girija\nand Ors. A.I.R. 1962 Mys. 72, explained and distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1543 of
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 13-8-1968\t of the\t Mysore High  Court  in\t C.R.P.\t No.
\n931\/67.\n<\/p>\n
     R. B. Datar and Lalit Bhardwaj for the Appellants
\n     K. N. Bhat for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KAILASAM, J.-This appeal is by special leave granted by
\nthis Court  against the judgment and order of the High Court
\nof Mysore  in C.R.P.  No. 931  of 1967\tallowing a  revision
\nagainst the  order passed  by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in
\nR.I.A. No. 2266 of 1966 in O.S. No. 91 of 1950.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tof the\tcase  may  be  briefly\tstated.\t The
\nparties to this litigation are governed by the Aliyasanthana
\nlaw prevalent  in the  district of  South Kanara.  They were
\nmembers of  a Kutumba  descended from a common ancestress by
\nname Manjekke.\tOne Parameshwari  and her  son and  daughter
\ninstituted Original  Suit No. 91 of 1950 before the Court of
\nthe subordinate\t Judge at  South  Kanara  for  partition  of
\nproperties in  accordance with\tthe provisions of the Madras
\nAliyasanthana Act,  1949, (Madras  Act IX of 1949). The suit
\nwas dismissed  by the  Trial  Court  upholding\tthe  defence
\nraised that a certain award decree made in Original Suit No.
\n314 of\t1924 on the file of the District Munsiff, Mangalore,
\namounted to  a partition  within the  meaning of sub-section
\n(6) of\tSection 36  of the  Madras  Aliyasanthana  Act,\t and
\ntherefore another  suit for  partition was not maintainable.
\nThough the  trial court\t dismissed the suit holding that the
\nsuit for  partition was\t not  sustainable  it  proceeded  to
\nrecord findings\t determining the shares to which the members
\nof several branches are entitled in the event of there being
\na decree for partition.\n<\/p>\n
     On appeal by the plaintiffs the High Court of Karnataka
\nreversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and held that
\nthe award  decree in  Original Suit  No. 314  of 1924 on the
\nfile of the District Munsiff,
\n408<\/span>
\nMangalore, did\tnot amount  to a partition and that the suit
\nfor partition  was maintainable.  The High  Court  passed  a
\npreliminary decree  on 28th June, 1961 and remanded the suit
\nfor further  proceedings. The Advocates on both sides agreed
\nregarding the shares of the parties and the Court directed a
\npreliminary decree for partition and specified the shares as
\nfound by  the Trial  Court in  Paragraph 17 of its judgment.
\nThe shares  were determined  on a  joint memo  filed by\t the
\nparties on  25th September,  1963. The\tshares\tallotted  to
\ndefendants 22  to 24  were 85,176  out of a total of 615,264
\nshares.\n<\/p>\n
     Defendants 22,  23 and  24 are  all male members of the
\nkutumba and  are ‘nissanthathi\tkavaru’. The  24th Defendant
\ndied before  the preliminary decree was passed on 10th June,
\n1957 and  his wife  and children  were brought\ton record as
\nlegal representatives. The 23rd defendant died on 9th March,
\n1962, after  the passing of the preliminary decree. His wife
\nand   children\t  were\t brought    on\t record\t  as   legal
\nrepresentatives. During\t the final  decree  proceedings\t the
\nlegal representatives  of the  24th respondent\tfiled R.I.A.
\nNo. 2259  of  1966  and\t the  representatives  of  the\t23rd
\ndefendant filed R.I.A. No. 2266 of 1966 claiming that out of
\nthe share  allotted to\tthe kavaru  of defendants  22 to 24,
\none-third representing the share or interest of the 24th and
\nthe 23rd  defendants be\t allotted to them. This petition was
\nopposed on the ground that each one of the defendants 22, 23
\nand 24\twas a  separate nissanthathi kavaru and on the death
\nof each\t of the\t defendants 24\tand 23 his share or interest
\ndevolved upon  the santhathi kavarus nearest to him to which
\ndefendants 11,\t12 and\t16 belonged.  The plea\tof the\t22nd
\ndefendant was  that all\t the three  defendants 22, 23 and 24
\nconstituted one\t single nissanthathi  kavaru to which, under
\nthe  preliminary  decree  one  single  or  joint  share\t was
\nallotted, and  therefore the said share survived to the last
\nsurviving member  thereof  (22nd  defendant),  and  that  no
\ndevolution on  a santhathi  kavaru under  sub-section (5) of
\nsection\t 36  is\t possible  until  the  last  member  of\t the
\nnissanthathi kavaru, viz., the 22nd defendant, dies.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial\tcourt found  that in  the High\tCourt decree
\ndated 20-6-1961\t defendants 22\tto 24  were allotted  shares
\njointly. It  rejected the contentions of both the applicants
\ni.e. the  legal representatives\t of defendants\t23 and 24 as
\nwell as\t the surviving\tdefendant 22 holding that defendants
\n22, 23\tand 24 formed three different nissathathi kavarus as
\ntheir mother  was dead at the time of the filing of the suit
\nand partition  was effected and there was undivided interest
\nin the\tproperty  when\tthey  died  so\tas  to\tattract\t the
\nprovisions of
\n409<\/span>
\nsection 7(2)  of the  Hindu Succession\tAct. The trial court
\ndismissed both I.As. 2259 & 2266\/66.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court  on  appeal  while\t agreeing  with\t the
\nconclusion arrived  at by  the Civil  Judge that  the  clear
\nintention of  defendants 22, 23 and 24 was that one share be
\njointly alloted to three of them together held that when the
\n24th defendant\tdied he\t had an\t undivided interest  in\t the
\nproperties of the kavaru of himself and defendants 22 and 23
\nand that  the said undivided interest quantified as provided
\nby the\texplanation to\tsub-section (2)\t of section 7 of the
\nHindu  Succession   Act,  and  would  devolve  by  intestate
\nsuccession under the said Succession Act. Similarly when the
\n23rd defendant\tdied he\t had an\t undivided interest  in\t the
\nproperty  jointly   belonging  to   himself  and   the\t22nd
\ndefendant. That undivided interest also got quantified under
\nsection 7(2) of Hindu Succession Act. The High Court allowed
\nthe appeals holding that the property descended according to
\nthe rules  of intestate\t succession contained  in the  Hindu
\nSuccession Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  appeal the  main\tcontention  of\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  the appellants  is that  the High\tCourt was in
\nerror in  holding that\tdefendants 22,\t23 and\t24 were male
\nmembers of  one\t nissanthathi  kavaru  and  that  the  three
\ndefendants did\tnot constitute\tthree different nissanthathi
\nkavarus. On  a consideration  of  the  plaint,\tthe  written
\nstatement, the\tconsent\t memo  and  the\t preliminary  decree
\npassed by  the High  Court  we\tagree  with  the  conclusion
\narrived at  by the  High Court.\t The suit  was filed  by one
\nParameshwari and  her son and daughter as plaintiffs in O.S.
\nNo. 91 of 1950 praying for a partition of the properties and
\nfor allotment  of her  share to\t her. In the suit defendants
\n22, 23\tand 24\twere made  parties as  they belonged  to the
\nkavaru of  their mother.  In paragraph\t10  of\tthe  written
\nstatement defendants  22, 23 and 24 stated that they have no
\nobjection  to\tthe  partition\t of  the  family  properties
\naccording to the rights of the parties but submitted that in
\nthe event  of partition\t their share  should be\t allotted to
\nthem and  further  the\tplaintiffs  should  be\tdirected  to
\nsurrender possession  of the properties in Schedule I of the
\nwritten statement.  The written\t statement was filed jointly
\nby the three defendants and their plea was that in the event
\nof partition  their share  should be  allotted to  them. The
\nstatement  clearly   indicates\tthat  the  three  defendants
\ntogether asked\tfor allotment  of their shares in the family
\nproperties. There was no dispute as to the quantum of shares
\nto the parties. The trial court has recorded:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The learned\tAdvocates on  both sides  are agreed
\n     that the  suit be\tdecreed for  partition in respect of
\n     the plaint
\n410<\/span>
\n     schedule immovable\t properties; they  are\talso  agreed
\n     that the  shares be  divided as indicated in para 17 of
\n     the  Trial\t  Court’s  judgment.   We  direct   that   a
\n     preliminary decree for partition of the plaint schedule
\n     immovable properties be drawn up accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 17 of the trial court’s judgment reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In case this suit is to be decreed, the shares to
\n     which the\tseveral parties\t are entitled  to will be as
\n     set out in the joint memo filed by the parties on 25-9-
\n     1963, which are as follows.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Shares of\tdefendants 22,\t23 and\t24 are\tmentioned as
\n85,176 out  of total share of 615,264. On a consideration of
\nthe pleadings  the consent  memo and  the preliminary decree
\nthe High  Court came  to the conclusion that the shares were
\nallotted to  the three defendants jointly. We agree with the
\nconclusion arrived  at by  the High  Court and hold that the
\nthree defendants  were\tallotted  jointly  a  share  in\t the
\npartition.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel for  the appellant  submitted that
\nthis finding  of fact  would not  conclude  the\t appeal.  He
\nsubmitted that in law there was no undivided interest in the
\nproperty which\tdefendants 24  and 23  owned at\t the time of
\ntheir death  as required  under section\t 7(2) of  the  Hindu
\nSuccession Act. The submission on this aspect is two fold.\n<\/p>\n
     (1)(a)    Defendants  cannot   claim  that\t  they\twere
\n\t       members of  the kavaru  of  their  mother  as
\n\t       their mother  was dead  at the  time when the
\n\t       partition suit was filed:\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)    Under the  Explanation to  sec. 35(2)  a male
\n\t       member of  a kutumba  is deemed to be kavaru.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Therefore each one of the three members would
\n\t       constitute a  separate kavaru  and  therefore
\n\t       there was  no undivided\tinterest as  amongst
\n\t       them.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)       The filing  of partition\t suit by  one of the
\n\t       members of  the kutumba would have the effect
\n\t       of effecting  the severance of the status and
\n\t       therefore there\twas no\tlonger any undivided
\n\t       interest between\t the several  members of the
\n\t       kutumba.\n<\/p>\n
     Before dealing  with the contentions it is necessary to
\nbriefly refer  to the salient features of Aliyasanthana law.
\nIn the\twell-known treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana law
\nby P.  R. Sundara Aiyar, a distinguished Judge of the Madras
\nHigh Court, and edited by
\n411<\/span>
\nB. Sitarama  Rao, an eminent lawyer of the Madras High Court
\nwho hailed  from the  South Kanara, the Aliyasanthana law is
\nstated to  imply a  rule of inheritance under which property
\ndescends in  the line  of nephews.  The term  “Aliyasanthana
\nLaw” is\t the exact Canarese equivalent of the Malayalam term
\nMarumakkathayam. Aliyasanthana Law differs but slightly from
\nthe Marumakkathayam  system.  In  its  main  features  viz.,
\nimpartibility,\tdescent\t  in  the   line  of   females\t and
\nnonrecognition\tof   marriage  as  a  legal  institution  it
\ncompletely  agrees   with  the\t Marumakkathayam   law.\t  In
\nAliyasanthana law  the\tmales  are  equal  proprietors\twith
\nfemales\t and  joint  management\t is  recognised,  while\t the
\nMarumakkathayam law  does not  recognise  a  right  to\tjoin
\nmanagement. The\t succession to\tthe separate  property of an
\nindividual member  in Aliyasanthana  law is  to the  nearest
\nheirs and  not to  the Tarwad as in the Marumakkathayam law.
\nThe succession\tof the\theirs of  the separate\tproperty is,
\nrecognised by  the Madras  Aliyasanthana Act, 1949, sections
\n18 to  24. On  the facts  of the  present  case\t it  is\t not
\ndisputed that  defendants 22,  23 and  24 have\tenjoyed\t the
\ninterest  as   nissanthathi  kavaru  and  on  partition\t are
\nentitled only to life-interest in the properties allotted to
\nthem under  section 36(3)  of the  Madras Aliyasanthana Act.
\nThe question  that arises  for consideration  is how far the
\nAliyasanthana Act  regarding partition\tand  succession\t has
\nbeen  affected\tby  the\t Hindu\tSuccession  Act.  The  Hindu
\nSuccession Act\tcame into  force on  17th  June,  1956.\t The
\npreamble states\t that the  Act amends  and modifies  the law
\nrelating to  intestate succession  among Hindus.  Though the
\npreamble refers\t only to “Intestate succession” as the title
\n‘Hindu Act’  indicates it  relates to  the law of succession
\namong Hindus  and not  merely  to  intestate  succession  as
\nmentioned in the Preamble. The law has brought about radical
\nchanges in  the law  of succession. The law is applicable to
\nall Hindus  as provided\t in section 2 of the Act. It is made
\nclear that  the\t law  is  applicable  not  only\t to  persons
\ngoverned by Dayabhaga and Mitakshara law but also to persons
\ngoverned  by  Aliyasanthana,  Marumakkathayam  and  Nambudri
\nsystems of  Hindu Law. Section 4 of the Act gives overriding
\napplication to\tthe provisions of the Act and lays down that
\nin respect  of any  of the matters dealt with in the Act all
\nexisting laws whether in the shape of enactment or otherwise
\nwhich are  inconsistent with the Act are repealed. Any other
\nlaw in force immediately before the commencement of this Act
\nceases to  apply to  Hindus in\tso far as it is inconsistent
\nwith any  of the  provisions contained\tin the\tAct.  It  is
\ntherefore clear\t that the  provisions of  Aliyasanthana\t law
\nwhether customary  or statutory\t will cease  to apply, in so
\nfar as\tthey are  inconsistent with  the provisions  of\t the
\nHindu Succession Act.\n<\/p>\n
412<\/span><\/p>\n
     The scheme of the Hindu Succession Act in the matter of
\nsuccession to  the property  of\t Hindu\tdying  intestate  is
\nprovided in sections 8 to 13. Sections 15 and 16 provide for
\nthe succession\tto the property of a female dying intestate.
\nSection 17  specifically provides  for\tapplication  of\t the
\nHindu Succession  Act to  persons governed  by\tMalabar\t and
\nAliyasanthana law.  Section 14 does not relate to succession
\nbut provides  that any\tproperty possessed by a female Hindu
\nwhether acquired  before or  after the\tcommencement of this
\nAct shall  be held  by her  as full owner thereof and not as
\nlimited owner.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 7(2)  is  the  section  which  relates  to\t the
\ndevolution of  an undivided  interest in  the property\tof a
\nkutumba or kavaru and may be extracted in full.\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7(2) When  a Hindu  to whom the Aliyasanthana law
\n     would have applied if this Act had not been passed dies
\n     after the\tcommencement of this Act, having at the time
\n     of his  or her  death  an\tundivided  interest  in\t the
\n     property of  Kutumba or Kavaru, as the case may be, his
\n     or her  interest  in  the\tproperty  shall\t devolve  by
\n     testamentary or  intestate succession,  as the case may
\n     be,  under\t  this\tAct   and  not\t according  to\t the
\n     Aliyasanthana law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Explanation-For the  purposes of this sub-section,
\n     the interest of a Hindu in the property of a kutumba or
\n     kavaru shall  be deemed to be the share in the property
\n     of the  kutumba or\t kavaru, as  the case  may be,\tthat
\n     would have\t fallen to him or her if a partition of that
\n     property per  capita had  been made  immediately before
\n     his or  her death\tamong all the members of the kutumba
\n     or kavaru,\t as the\t case may be, then living whether he
\n     or she  was entitled  to claim  such partition  or\t not
\n     under the\tAliyasanthana law,  and such  share shall be
\n     deemed to have been allotted to him or her absolutely.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Under  the\t  customary  law   and\tunder\tthe   Madras
\nAliyasanthana  Act,  1949  the\tundivided  interest  in\t the
\nproperty of  a Hindu  in  Aliyasanthana\t kutumba  or  kavaru
\ndevolved according  to the  provisions of  the Aliyasanthana
\nlaw but\t after the  introduction of sec. 7(2) the devolution
\nby  testamentary   or  intestate  succession  is  under\t the
\nprovisions of  the Hindu  Succession Act. The Explanation to
\nsec. 7(2)  provides that the interest in the property of the
\nkutumba or kavaru of a Hindu shall be deemed to be the share
\nin the\tproperty of  the kutumba  or kavaru, as the case may
\nbe, that  would have  fallen to him or her if a partition of
\nthat property  per capita  had been  made immediately before
\nhis or\ther death  among all  the members  of the kutumba or
\nkavaru, as  the case  may be,  then living whether he or she
\nwas entitled
\n413<\/span>
\nto claim  such partition or not under the Aliyasanthana law,
\nand such  share shall be deemed to have been allotted to him
\nor her absolutely. The result of the Explanation is that the
\nundivided interest  in the  property of\t the  Hindu  in\t the
\nAliyasanthana kutumba  or kavaru  shall devolve\t as provided
\nfor under the Hindu Succession Act and that the share of the
\nHindu  shall   be  deemed  to  have  been  allotted  to\t him
\nabsolutely.  The   Explanation\tto  sec.  30  of  the  Hindu
\nSuccession Act\tprovides that  a member\t of an Aliyasanthana
\nkutumba or kavaru can dispose of his interest in the kutumba
\nproperties by  a  will.\t Under\tthe  Aliyasanthana  law\t the
\nindividual cannot  dispose of his interest in the kutumba by
\na will.\t Explanation to sec. 30(1) enables the male Hindu in
\na kutumba  or kavaru to dispose of his interest in a kutumba
\nor kavaru  which is  deemed to\tbe property capable of being
\ndisposed of  by him. Thus while sec. 7(2) provides that when
\na Hindu\t to whom the Aliyasanthana law would have applied if
\nthis Act  had not been passed dies after the commencement of
\nthis Act,  having at  the  time\t of  his  or  her  death  an
\nundivided interest  in the  property of kutumba or kavaru as
\nthe case  may be,  under the  Hindu Succession\tAct, sec. 30
\nenables the  male Hindu to dispose of his undivided interest
\nin a  kutumba or  kavaru by a will. While these two sections
\nrelate to  undivided interest in the property of the kutumba
\nor kavaru  sec. 17 deals with the succession to the separate
\nproperty of  a Hindu  male under  the Aliyasanthana  law. It
\nprovides that  sections 8,  10, 15  and 23 shall have effect
\nwith certain  modifications in relation to persons who would
\nhave been  governed by\tthe  Aliyasanthana  law.  Section  8
\nprovides that  the property  of a male Hindu dying intestate
\nshall devolve as specified in the section. The succession to
\nthe property  of a  male Hindu\tbelonging to  a\t kutumba  or
\nkavaru\tof   Aliyasanthana  law\t dying\tintestate  would  be
\ngoverned by  the provisions of sec. 8 as modified by sec. 17
\nthe effect  being that\tthe succession as provided for under
\nthe Aliyasanthana  law would  not be  applicable. Section 10
\nprovides for  the distribution\tof property  among heirs  in
\nClass I\t of the\t Schedule. Section  15 provides\t the general
\nrule of\t succession in\tthe case of Hindu females. The\trule
\nas to the succession is also made applicable to Hindu female
\nunder the  Aliyasanthana law with the modifications provided
\nfor under  sub-sec. (2)\t of section  17. Section  23 of\t the
\nHindu Succession  Act is  not applicable to a Hindu governed
\nby Aliyasanthana  law. Thus  sec. 17 which makes sections 8,
\n10, 15\tand 23\tapplicable with\t certain modifications\tto a
\nHindu under the Aliyasanthana law provides for succession of
\nthe separate  property of  a Hindu  male and a female. After
\nthe coming  into force\tof the\tHindu  Succession  Act,\t the
\nprovisions  of\t section  7(2)\tare  applicable\t as  regards
\nundivided interest  of a Hindu governed by Aliyasanthana law
\n8–531SCI\/79
\n414<\/span>
\nwhile the  provisions of  the explanation  to section 30 are
\napplicable in the case of a will relating to his interest in
\nthe family  property. Section  17 provides  that sections 8,
\n10, 15\tand 23 with modifications will apply to the separate
\nproperty of a Hindu under the Aliyasanthana law.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 14\t enlarges the property possessed by a female
\nHindu whether  acquired before\tor after the commencement of
\nthe Hindu Succession Act by providing that she will hold the
\nproperty as  full owner\t and not  as a\tlimited owner.\tThis
\nprovision is  applicable to  Hindu females and does not have
\nthe effect  of enlarging  a limited estate in the hands of a
\nHindu male.  The Hindu\tmale will  be entitled\tonly to\t the
\nlimited rights\tas  provided  for  under  the  law  that  is
\napplicable to him. But when once the succession opens by the
\ndeath of  the Hindu sec. 7(2) provides that the share in the
\nundivided interest  of the  Hindu would devolve on his heirs
\nunder the  Hindu Succession  Act absolutely.  A Hindu  under
\nsection 30 of the Hindu Succession Act is also conferred the
\nright to disposing of by will his interest in the kutumba or
\nkavaru. While  a Hindu dies intestate his undivided interest
\ndevolves absolutely  on\t his  heirs,  in  the  case  of\t his
\nseparate  property   the  succession   is  governed  by\t the
\nprovisions of  sections 8,  10 and 15 of the Act as modified
\nby section 17.\n<\/p>\n
     It may be noted that regarding the separate property of
\na Hindu\t the Madras  Aliyasanthana  Act\t provides  that\t the
\nprovisions of  sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act
\nwould be  applicable. The  separate property does not revert
\nback to\t the kutumba  or kavaru of the Aliyasanthana family.
\nAt the time of the partition if any kavaru taking a share is
\na nissanthathi kavaru, it shall have only a life-interest in
\nthe properties\tallotted to  it under  certain circumstances
\nand the\t property would revert back to a santhathi kavaru if
\nit  is\t in  existence.\t  Section  36(3)   of\tthe   Madras
\nAliyasanthana Act provides that the properties allotted to a
\nnissanthathi kavaru  at a partition and in which it had only
\na life-interest at the time of the death of the last member,
\nshall devolve  upon the\t kutumba or  where the\tkutumba\t has
\nbroken up,  at the same or at a subsequent partition, into a
\nnumber of  kavarus, upon  the nearest  santhathi  kavaru  or
\nkavarus. The  devolution  of  the  property  allotted  to  a
\nnissathati kavaru  which has  only a  life-interest devolves
\nupon a kutumba or the nearest santhathi kavaru. This mode of
\ndevolution prescribed  by section 36(5) of the Aliyasanthana
\nAct has\t to give  way to  the provisions of section 8 of the
\nHindu Succession  Act which  prescribed a  different mode of
\nsuccession.\n<\/p>\n
     The effect\t of the\t provisions of\tthe Hindu Succession
\nAct above referred to is that after the coming into force of
\nthe Hindu  Succession Act  an undivided\t interest of a Hindu
\nwould devolve as provided for
\n415<\/span>
\nunder sec.  7(2) while\tin the\tcase of separate property it
\nwould devolve  on his  heirs as\t provided for  in the  Hindu
\nSuccession Act. Even though a nissanthathi kavaru might have
\na limited  interest as\tthe devolution prescribed for in the
\nMadras\tAliyasanthana\tAct  is\t  no  more   applicable\t the
\ndevolution will be under the Hindu Succession Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t this  case  the  property  has\t been  found  to  be
\nundivided as  between defendants 22, 23 and 24 and therefore
\nthe position  is that  on the  death  of  each\tone  of\t the
\ndefendants his\tundivided  interest  would  devolve  on\t his
\nheirs.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel for  the appellants  relied on the
\nExplanation to\tsec. 35(2)  of the  Madras Aliyasanthana Act
\nand submitted  that every  male member of a kutumba shall be
\ndeemed to  be a kavaru and on filing of a suit for partition
\nit must\t be deemed that every male member of the kutumba got
\nhimself separated.  Kuttumba is\t defined under\tsec. 3(c) as
\nmeaning a  group of  persons forming  a\t joint\tfamily\twith
\ncommunity of  property governed\t by the Aliyasanthana law of
\ninheritance. Kavaru is defined under sec. 3 (b) (i) and (ii)
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “3(b)(i)”Kavaru”, used  in relation  to a  female,
\n     means the\tgroup of  persons consisting of that female,
\n     her children  and all  her descendants  in\t the  female
\n     line;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii)”Kavaru” used in relation to a male, means the
\n     Kavaru of the mother of that male;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  case of  defendants 22, 23 and 24 who are males
\nthe kavaru would mean the kavaru of the mother of that male.
\nThe male by himself cannot be a kavaru under the definition.
\nBy virtue  of the Explanation to sec. 35(2) a male member of
\na kutumba  is deemed  to be  a kavaru  for  the\t purpose  of
\nChapter VI.  Chapter VI\t deals with partition of kutumba. In
\nthis case  the suit  was filed\tby Parmeshwari\tand her\t two
\nchildren for  the partition and separate possession of their
\nshare of the kutumba property. When the suit is not filed by
\na male\tmember the  provisions\t of Chapter  VI will  not be
\napplicable. The\t deemed definition  is\tonly  applicable  in
\nconsidering the\t right to claim partition. Further, when the
\nplaintiff filed\t the suit there is no presumption that there
\nwas a division in status of all the kavarus that constituted
\nthe kutumba.  The filing of the suit will no doubt result in
\nthe division  of the  status of the plaintiff kavaru but the
\nother kavarus  may   continue to  be joint  in the  kutumba.
\nWhether the  other kavarus  continued to  be  joint  in\t the
\nkavaru or  not is  a question  of fact.\t In this  case it is
\nfound there  is no  material to hold that there was division
\nof status  as between defendants 22, 23 and 24. In this view
\nthe contentions\t of the\t learned counsel  for the appellants
\nthat there was divi-\n<\/p>\n
416<\/span><\/p>\n
sion in\t status on  the filing\tof the suit for partition or
\nthat as the mother was dead there were separate kavarus will
\nhave to\t be negatived.\tThe reliance  on Explanation to sec.
\n35(2) will not help the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     In Jalaja\tShedthi & Ors. v. Lakshmi Shedthi & Ors.<\/a> one
\nand his sister and her sons were members of an Aliyasanthana
\nKutumba. C  executed a\twill on January 25, 1957 bequeathing
\nhis interest  in favour\t of the\t appellants. On\t January 25,
\n1957 the  respondents issued  a notice\tto C stating that he
\nwas the\t manager of  the  divided  family,  that  he  was  a
\nnissanthathi kavaru  while the\trespondents  were  santhathi
\nkavarus, as  such there\t were only two kavarus and that they
\nhad  decided   to  divide   the\t properties  between  C\t and
\nthemselves. The\t  respondents  demanded a share belonging to
\ntheir kavaru  from out\tof the\tentire movable and immovable
\nproperties of the family. C replied on January 24, 1957 that
\nthere were  only two  kavarus in  the family  and  both\t the
\nkavarus were  nissanthathi kavarus. C also expressed that he
\nhad no\tobjection to  the claim\t for partition\tmade by\t the
\nrespondents and\t was prepared  to  effect  it  provided\t the
\nrespondents cooperated.\t C subsequently died on February 13,
\n1957 after the coming into force of the Succession Act.\n<\/p>\n
     On March  23, 1957\t the appellants gave a notice to the
\nrespondents claiming  a separate  share under  C’s will. The
\nrespondents replied  to the  notice on\tthe same day denying
\nthat the  appellants had any share because according to them
\nC  was\t entitled  only\t  to  a\t  life-interest\t under\t the
\nAliyasanthana law.  It was held by this Court that there was
\nneither a  kutumba nor\tcan C be a kavaru as the two kavarus
\nafter the  division in\tstatus became  only one kavaru, viz.
\nthat of\t respondent No. 1, sister of C. It was held that the
\nC is  not a  kavaru within  the meaning\t of sec. 3(b) of the
\nMadras Act  because under  sec. 3(b)  (ii), there  being  no
\nfemale line,  it is  only C’s mother who can be a kavaru but
\nnot C.\tIf C  is not  a kavaru\tthere is  no property  of  a
\nkavaru, which  can be  disposed of  under  sec.\t 30  of\t the
\nSuccession Act.\t Even under the explanation to that section,
\nthe life-interest  which C had on severance of status is not
\nproperly capable of being disposed of by a will nor could it
\ndevolve by survivorship. As he is no longer a kavaru and had
\ntherefore no  interest in  the property\t of the\t kavaru, C’s
\nlife-interest is also not enlarged under section 7(2) of the
\nHindu Succession  Act, into an absolute interest. Section 14
\nof the Hindu Succession Act cannot also be availed of as the
\nlife-interest of  a male  under the Aliyasanthana law cannot
\nenlarge under section 14.\n<\/p>\n
417<\/span><\/p>\n
     Jalaja Shedthi & Ors. v. Lakshmi Shedthi & Ors.<\/a> (supra)
\nrelates\t to  a\twill  executed\ton  15th  January,  1958  by
\nChandayya Shetty  bequeathing his  interest in favour of his
\nwife and children. A week after the execution of the will on
\n22nd January,  the  first  respondent  i.e.  the  sister  of
\nChandayya  Shetty  and\ther  children  issued  a  notice  to
\nChandayya Shetty stating that they had decided to divide the
\nproperties  between  Chandayya\tShetty\tand  themselves\t and
\ndemanded a share belonging to their kavaru. Chandayya Shetty
\nsubsequently died  on 13th  February, 1957.  On 23rd  March,
\n1957 Chandayya\tShetty’s wife  and her\tchildren gave notice
\nclaiming a  separate  share  under  the\t will  of  Chandayya
\nShetty. It  was found  that on\ta demand for partition there
\nwas a  division of  status though  partition  by  metes\t and
\nbounds had  not taken  place. There was only two kavarus and
\nin the\tcircumstances it  could not  be pleaded\t that  joint
\nstatus between\tother kavarus continued. There was therefore
\nno undivided interest of a coparcener, within the meaning of
\nsection 7  (2) of  the Hindu Succession Act. If there was no
\nundivided interest  it is  clear that  provisions of section
\n7(2)  of   the\tHindu\tSuccession  Act\t  cannot  apply.  In
\nconsidering the effect of the will the Court agreed with the
\nview of\t a full Bench of the High Court of Mysore in Sundara
\nAdappa and Ors. v. Girija & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended before  the full Bench that by virtue
\nof sec.\t 30(1) of  the Hindu Succession Act the right of the
\nfirst defendant\t who had  obtained a  preliminary decree for
\nhis 75\/360th share of his properties became capable of being
\ndisposed of  by will and therefore the children of the first
\ndefendant would\t be entitled to the share in accordance with
\nthe terms  thereof. The\t Mysore High  Court  held  that\t the
\nbenefit referred  to in\t the Explanation  to sec.  30(1)  is
\nconfined to  the interest of a male Hindu in his kutumba and
\nwould not apply to the property obtained by him as his share
\nin the preliminary decree. This Court in approving the above
\nobservations observed. “The above statement of the law which
\nmeets  the  several  contentions  raised  before  us  is  in
\nconsonance with\t our own  reading of  the provisions  of the
\nMadras Act  and the Succession Act”. This Court rejected the
\npleas that  the effect\tof section  17 of the Succession Act
\nwas not\t considered in\tthe Mysore  case, holding  that\t the
\nquestion was  not relevant in the case before them or in the
\nMysore case because sec. 17 of the Succession Act applies to
\nprovisions of  sections 8,  10, 15  and 23  which dealt with
\nintestacy. As  we are concerned in the present case with the
\nintestate succession  to the estate of defendants 24 and 23,
\nthe decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
418<\/span><\/p>\n
     The plea  of the  learned counsel\tfor the\t respondents
\nthat even  if the  property of the defendants 24 and 23 were
\nheld to\t be separate  property the  succession would  be  in
\naccordance with\t Hindu\tSuccession  Act\t by  virtue  of\t the
\nprovisions of  sec. 17 of the Hindu Succession Act will have
\nto be  considered. Chapter  II of  the Hindu  Succession Act
\nwhich deals  with the  intestate succession is applicable to
\nthe property  of Hindus\t and the  provisions of this Chapter
\nwould prevail  over any\t law which  was in force immediately
\nbefore\tthe   commencement  of\t this  Act.   Therefore\t the
\nprovisions relating  to succession  of Aliyasanthana  Hindus
\nwould be  by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and,
\nnot by\tthe Aliyasanthana  law. Section\t 7(2) and sec. 17 of
\nthe Hindu  Succession Act  deal specifically with succession
\nof the\tproperty  of  a\t Hindu\tbelonging  to  Aliyasanthana
\nfamily. While  sec. 7(2)  relates to devolution of undivided
\ninterest in  the property  of a kutumba or kavaru of a Hindu
\nbelonging to  an Aliyasanthana\tfamily\tsec.  17  makes\t the
\nprovisions  of\t sections  8,\t10,  15\t  and  23  with\t the
\nmodifications specified\t in sec.  17 to\t the  devolution  of
\nseparate property  of a\t Hindu under  the Aliyasanthana law.
\nAccording to  the provisions  of  sec.\t36(5)  the  property
\nallotted to nissanthathi kavaru at a partition is enjoyed by
\nit only\t as a  life-interest and at the time of the death of
\nthe last of its members shall devolve upon the kutumba. This
\ndevolution of  the life-interest is according to sec. 36(5).
\nWhen  a\t  Hindu\t governed  by  the  Aliyasanthana  law\tdies
\npossessed of  a life  interest, after his death the property
\ndevolves under\tthe Hindu  Succession Act  and not under the
\nAliyasanthana Act and therefore would not revert back to the
\nkutumba. This  Court in\t Jalaja Shedthi\t & Ors.\t v.  Lakshmi
\nShedthi &  Ors.<\/a> (supra)\t while deciding\t the rights  of\t the
\nparties under  a  will\texecuted  by  a\t Hindu\tgoverned  by
\nAliyasanthana law  held at  p. 719:  “Similarly on  the same
\nparity of  reasoning, when  there are  two kavarus, a demand
\nfor partition  would disrupt them and Chandayya Shetty could
\nno longer claim that he had an undivided interest within the
\nmeaning of sec. 7(2) of the Succession Act, and if he has no
\nundivided interest  in the  property, his interest cannot be
\nenlarged into an absolute estate nor can his interest in the
\nproperty devolve  upon his  heirs by  intestate succession.”
\nThe words  underlined by  us relate  to intestate succession
\nand the\t Court has  specifically  stated  that\tit  was\t not
\nreferring  to  the  provisions\tof  sec.  17  of  the  Hindu
\nSuccession Act\tas it related to intestate succession. These
\nobservations relating  to intestate succession are therefore
\nin the\tnature of  obiter.  The\t separate  property  is\t not
\nenlarged into  an absolute  estate under  sec. 7(2)  but  on
\ndeath it  devolves on  the heirs as provided under the Hindu
\nSuccession Act.\t Therefore it  will not\t revert back  to the
\nkutumba but  only to  the heirs\t as provided  for under\t the
\nHindu
\n419<\/span>
\nSuccession Act.\t Similarly in  the observations at p. 721 of
\nthe Reports  where it  has observed  : “In this case also as
\nalready stated,\t there is no kavaru of Chandayya Shetty, and
\non separation  he had  only a  life interest  which is not a
\nheritable property  and cannot be disposed of by a will, nor
\ncould  it   devolve  as\t on  intestacy.”  The  reference  to
\ndevolution on  intestacy is  again in  the nature  of obiter
\ndicta.\n<\/p>\n
     On a  consideration of  the  contentions  made  by\t the
\nlearned counsel appearing for both the parties we agree with
\nthe conclusion\treached by  the High  Court and dismiss this
\nappeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t  Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
420<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 198, 1980 SCR (1) 404 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: SUNDARI AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: LAXMI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/08\/1979 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. GUPTA, A.C. CITATION: 1980 AIR 198 1980 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1979-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-30T13:31:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T13:31:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\"},\"wordCount\":5434,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\",\"name\":\"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-30T13:31:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-30T13:31:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979","datePublished":"1979-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T13:31:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979"},"wordCount":5434,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979","name":"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-30T13:31:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sundari-and-ors-vs-laxmi-and-ors-on-28-august-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sundari And Ors vs Laxmi And Ors on 28 August, 1979"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}