MANICKA GOUNDER Vs. ARUNACHALA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, which has been filed against the judgment of Jagadisan J. raises an important question relating to the construction of S. 3 (2) of the Hindu Women's rights to Property Act, 1937, which, for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to as the "act". The precise form of the question before us is.

(2.) SUBSTANTIALLY what, therefore, falls to be decided in this appeal is, the correctness of the view taken on this point in.

(3.) BEFORE taking up that question we shall first refer to the facts which have led up to this litigation. Nagoji and Krishnamurthi, who were brothers, constituted a joint Hindu family. The former was married and the latter not. They had a sister by name Rukmani. Nagoji died on 10-1-1950 leaving behind him his widow, Kamala krishnamurthi survived his brother only for two days. On his death, his brother's widow, Kamala claiming that she became entitled to the entire property, by survivorship, sold the property in suit to the appellant. Rukmani, as the heir of the sole surviving coparcener, Krishnamurthi, made a claim that she inherited the entire property from her brother and sold it to the first respondent. The suit instituted by the latter for recovery of possession of the property failed in the trial court. On appeal, however, the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, upheld rukmani's title to half the property, the share possessed by Krishnamurthi, and granted a decree for partition in favour of her alienee. The appellant, Kamala's alienee, filed a second appeal to this court against that decree but without success, Jagdisan J. who disposed of the appeal held that while kamala would be entitled to her husband's share in the family property, her rights would not extend so as to vest in her even the interest possessed by krishnamurthi, who survived her husband, and that his interest would go to his heir as his separate property. In reaching that conclusion the learned Judge followed an unreported judgment of this court in A. S. No. 299 of 1950, (Mad), seshi Ammal v. Lakshmi Ammal, in preference to. In view, however, of the conflict of decisions in this court, the learned Judge, if we may say so with respect, very properly granted a certificate under Cl. 15 of the Letters patent to enable the aggrieved party to file this appeal.