KRISHNA IYER Vs. LEKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this Second Appeal obtained a decree for money against the assets of one deceased Devanarayana Iyer in O. S. 282/1090 on the file of the Munsiffs Court of Krishnapuram, impleading the widow, sister, and mother's sister of the deceased, as defendants 3, 2 and 1 respectively. In execution of that decree, certain items of properties were attached as forming part of the estate of the deceased. Defendants 1 and 2 preferred objections to the attachment, claiming the properties as heirs of the other of the first defendant who is the grand mother of the 2nd defendant as also of the Devanarayana Iyer. THE trial Court over-ruled the objections but in appeal, the Temporary Second Judge of Mavelikara took a different view and upheld the objections. Hence this Second Appeal by the decree holder.

(2.) THE following geneology is necessary to elucidate the question that arises in the case:- Table : # 1

(3.) THE only question that arises in this Second Appeal is as to upon whom the properties devolved, whether on the 1st defendant or on the deceased Devanarayana Iyer. It is admitted that the parties are governed by the hindu (Mithakshara) Law. According to that law, if the heir of the last male owner is himself a male, then he becomes a stock of descent and at his death the devolution of the property is traced from him. But if the heir is a female, she does not, except in Bombay, become a fresh stock of discent. At her death the property passes not to her heirs but to lose of the last male holder, that is to say, the male holder will be deemed by the law as having lived up to and died at the moment of the death of the female heir. THE principle is well established. (See Moniram Kolita v. Kerri Kolitani 1880 (7) IA 115, Lakshmi Ammal v. Ananthrama ILR (1937) Mad. , 948 F. B. , Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage, 11th Edition 1950, 585, Paragraph 482 ).