JOSEPH PHILIP Vs. MARIAMMA CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases concern a Christian woman in the travancore area of Kerala State : her rights on intestate succession when a preliminary decree has intervened in a pending suit, where the preliminary decree is concernedly based on the wrong law. The issue involved will have impact in other cases too: and it has general importance, in that view. Background of legal provisions

(2.) FOR historic reasons, Christian women happened to have different laws in the Malabar and Travancore-Cochin portions of the State. The indian Succession Act, 1925 applied to those in the Malabar area The Travancore christian Succession Act, 1092 M. E. had held the field in the Travancore area, and the Cochin Christian Succession Act in the Cochin portion. Travancore and Cochin were two independent States prior to their integration on 1-7-1949. The travancore-Cochin State so formed was a 'part-B State,' as it was then called under the Constitutional scheme. Many enactments passed by the Indian legislature, were extended to the Part B States by a major legislative measure made in 1951, the Part B States Laws Act, 1951. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 was one such Act. What is the law which governs the Christians in relation to their succession, after the enactment of the Part B States Laws Act? It was a gray area. A live dispute arose when Joseph Kathanar died intestate on 24-12-1952. The sons of a deceased sister of Joseph Kathanar claimed shares in the property. They are entitled to a share if the Indian Act is applicable; otherwise not. The issue was finally decided by a Division Bench of the travancore-Cochin High Court in Kurian Augusty v. Devassy Aley,1956 KLT 559. That Court ruled that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, would continue to govern the intestate succession among the Christians of Travancore. The correctness of the view was not challenged immediately by an approach to the supreme Court. The defeat in two Courts apparently depressed the spirits of the plaintiffs. A legal fight in the apex Court is too costly a venture for an ordinary family in the Kerala State. Delhi is that way distant, very distant, geographically. Feminine insurgency in relation to the establishment of equal rights, was yet to develop in this State, despite extensive educational attainments of the women. A dissentient view was visible in the neighbouring states, when a similar issue arose from a former portion of the Travancore state which merged with Tamil Nadu consequent on the States Re-organisation act, 1956. That was somewhat belated, in the year 1974. Justice Ismail of the madras High Court held that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 stood wholly repealed by virtue of S. 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, and that it had not been saved by S. 29 (2) of the Indian Succession Act. 1925. (Vide solomon v. Muthiah, 1974 (1) MLJ. 5 ). Gokila Krishnan, J. and Mudaliyar J. of that Court took the same view. That view was, however, soon over-ruled by a division Bench of the Madras High Court in D. Chelliah v. G. Lalitha Bai, AIR. 1978 Mad. 66.

(3.) EVEN for the establishment and realisation of their limited rights under the Travancore Act, parties had quite often to seek the aid of the Court. In many such suits, the Christian women were parties, in one capacity or other.