K PADHMANABHA PILLAI Vs. CHANDRA PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the husband of the deceased 3rd defendant in the suit. The plaintiff in the suit filed an application to bring on record the petitioner herein as well as his two sons as the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant,. One of the defendant in the suit, viz, the 2nd defendant opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner herein is not a legal representative of the deceased 3rd defendant. That contention was accepted and the Court below ordered that the sons of the deceased 3rd defendant only should be brought on record as the legal representatives. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below is in error in placing reliance upon the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Hindu Succession Act. According to her, the 3rd defendant, no doubt, was a member of a Marumakathayam family previously, but after the passing of the preliminary decree, the family got disrupted and there was no Marumakathayam family which could be governed by Marumakathayam law as such. It is further contended that Sec. 17 of the Hindu Succession Act can come into play only if there had been no partition and the entire Marumakathayam family remained in tact. According to learned counsel, the 3rd defendant having died after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, her estate had become absolute during her life time under Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession, Act on the partition being effected by the passing of the preliminary decree. Consequently, it is contended that Sec. 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is the only provision that would govern the succession of the properties of the deceased 3rd defendant.