PACHIAMMAL Vs. VEERAPPA THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant in O.S. No. 33 of 1965, who is also the second defendant in O.S. No. 195 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore, is the appellant in these two letters patent appeals. The interesting question that arises in these appeals is whether to a case of succession to the estate of a Hindu male, who held the property as the last male -holder, the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, Act 2 of 1929, is applicable or not.

(2.) THE short facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeals may be stated. One A. Kandaswami Gounder died in 1912, leaving behind him, his widow Rangammal, two sons, K. Arunachala and K. Kandaswami and three daughters Angammal, Palaniammal, and Pachiammal, Kandaswami's son K. Arunachala died issueless in 1938. After a few months K. Kandaswami also died issueless. After K. Kandaswami's death. Rangammal the mother, was in enjoyment of the joint family properties. The said Rangammal died in 1953. Thereafter, Angammal, the sister of the last male holder K. Kandaswami filed O.S. No. 195 of 1963 for partition and separate possession of the one -third share in the joint family properties. She got a decree. An appeal A. S. No. 412 of 1966, was preferred by Pachiammal, another sister of Kandaswami. After the decree in O.S. No. 195 of 1963 was passed, Ganapathy, son of Pachiammal, filed O.S. No. 33 of 1965 claiming that as the sister's son, he was the nearer heir to Kandaswami. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and he preferred an appeal, A. S. No. 290 of 1966. The appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 195 of 1963 and the appeal A. S. 290 of 1966 against the decision in O.S. No. 33 of 1965 were heard together. Both the appeals were allowed and it was held that the sister's son was the nearer heir and that Act II of 1929 was not applicable. On appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court confirmed the view of the lower appellate Court and dismissed the second appeals.

(3.) THE controversy in these appeals centres round the expression, "the property of males not held in coparcenary". The emphasis is made on the words, "not held in coparcenary" and it is contended that this section applies to cases where a male dies intestate leaving property, which is not coparcenary property or ancestral property as understood by the Hindu law. Examining the section by itself, we find no difficulty in holding that it is not applicable to the property of males held in coparcenary. The words, "not held in coparcenary" would not, in our view, justify the construction that the said section is not applicable to coparcenary property in the hands of the last male holder. The contention of Mr. D. Ramaswami Iyengar, learned counsel for the Respondents is that the coparcenary property has a definite meaning in Hindu Law it would include all property which will continue to be coparcenary or joint family property even in the hands of the last male holder, and would be excluded from the operation of the Act. We do not see any justification for such a construction of the Act.