If inheritance opened in specified year, Plaintiff-Appellant could not succeed to property of her husband on account of disqualification on ground of unchastity - widow not entitled to partition.

Citation

CDJ 1983 MHC 389

Kuppu@kuppammal vs kuppusamy mandiri and ors

Head note

Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956) – Section 8 – Section 14 – Section 28 – Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act – Section 3 – Grant of inheritance – Whether the Courts below were right in holding that on account of her unchastity, Plaintiff was not entitled to succeed to interest of her deceased husband, when Section 28 of 1956 Act does not prescribe unchastity as ground of disqualification for inheritance -

Court Held – Operation of Section 28 of 1956 Act also can come in only in cases where inheritance opens after coming into force of 1956 Act – If inheritance opened in specified year, Plaintiff-Appellant could not succeed to property of her husband on account of disqualification on ground of unchastity –  If so, Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in property by reason of Section 3 of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act – Merely on ground of institution of suit by Plaintiff claiming share in estate of her husband, it cannot be held that she is entitled to share – It cannot be held that merely because the Hindu Succession Act has come into force,  should give effect to provisions of that Act so as to affect rights of parties retrospectively – Under these circumstances, there is nothing that can be done to benefit of Plaintiff – Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are confirmed – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 46, 47, 48, 49)

Cases Referred:
Ramaiya Konar v. Mottayya Mudaliar l.L.R. [1952] Mad. 187; 64 L.W. 776; A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 954 : [1951] 2 M.L.J. 314
Gada Dhur Mulik v. Official Trustee of Bengal I.L.R. [1940] 1 Cal. 415
Kuppathammal v. Sakthi 70 L.W. 249; A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 695
Govindammal v. Ramasami 81 L.W. 655; I.L.R. [1969] 2 Mad. 684
Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Ganesa Iyer 85 L.W. 82; A.1.R 1972 Mad. 357 : [1972] 2 M.L.J. 50
Phulmani v. State A.I.R. 1974 Orissa 135
Chandi Charan v. Bhagyadhari A.I.R. 1976 Cal. 356
Khagendra Nath v. Karunadhar A.I.R. 1978 Cal. 431
Chockalingam Pillai v. Alamelu Ammal : [1981] 2 M.L.J. 23
R. Narasimhachari v. Andal Ammal 91 L.W. 598; A.I.R. 1979 Mad. 31; I.L.R. [1979] 1 Mad. 1 : [1978] 2 M.L.J. 520
Sundari v. Laxmi [1980] 1 S.C.C. 19; [1980] 1 S.C.R. 404; [1980] 1 Kar L.J. 1; A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 198
Appa Saheb v. Gurubasawwa A.I.R. 1960 Mys. 79
Akoba Laxman v. Sai Genu Laxman A.I.R. 1941 Bom. 204
Lachmeshwar Prasad v. Keshwar Lal 1940 F.C.R. 84; 53 L.W. 373; A.I.R. 1941 F.C. 5 : [1941] 1 M.L.J. (Supp.) 49
Kanailal v. Pannasashi A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 598
Manabai v. Chandan Bai A.I.R. 1954 Nag. 284
Surja Kumar v. Manmantha A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 200
Marakkal v. Angappa Gounder : [1960] 2 M.L.J. (N.R.C.) 49

Comparative Citation:
1984 (2) MLJ 224,

#partition
#deathbefore1956