FATEH BIBI Vs. CHARAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THE short question that arises for consideration inthis appeal, filed by the legal representatives of the deceased defendant, oncertificate, is whether on a true construction of the Hindu Law of Inheritance(Amendment) Act, 1929 (Act 2 of 1929) (hereinafter referred to as the Act),it applies only to the case of a Hindu male dying intestate on or after 21/02/1929 (when the Act came into force) or whether it applies in thecase of a Hindu male dying intestate before the Act came into operation andsucceeded by a female heir who died after that date.

(3.) THE defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds.He alleged that Charanji Lal did not pre-decease Kirpa Ram but, on theother band, after the death of Kirpa Ram, Charanji Lal, his son, became heirand was in possession of the properties left by his father. Charanji Lal diedlong afterwards, in or about 1926 and, after his death, his mother Bishan Devibecame heir to the property left by Charanji Lal, for her life-time. Afterthe death of Bishan Devi, the defendant claimed that he, as a collateral ofKirpa Ram, became entitled to the properties of the latter and, as such, gotmutation effected in his favour, according to law. He further averred thatMaya Devi did not at all come into possession of the estate after the death ofBishan Devi. In fact the defendant even disputed the fact that Maya Deviwas the daughter of Bishan Devi. Even if Maya Devi was the daughter ofBishan Devi, the defendant alleged that according to the custom governingthe parties, Maya Devi had no right to the properties left by Bishan Devi.On these allegations, the defendant maintained that he was rightly entitledto the properties of Kirpa Ram and that the plaintiff has no cause of actionfor having the mutation effected in the Revenue Registers in his favourcancelled.