PARBATI DIBYA Vs. SMT. LAXMI DEBI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff seeks to revise an order passed in a final decree proceeding arising out of a partition suit rejecting his objections to the passing of the final decree and ordering that the decree be made final.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for Plaintiff assails the order on the following two grounds; (1) the lower Court erred in holding that Section 23 of the Hindu Secession Act is not applicable to a case where both the heirs are females and, (2) as a consequence, the proceeding subsequent to the date of the impugned order including the drawing up, signing and sealing the final decree is without jurisdiction. For opp. party No. 1, it is contended that the view taken by the lower Court in construing Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act is absolutely correct, and secondly, irrespective of other considerations, as a final decree has been drawn up signed and sealed and Plaintiff has got a right of appeal against the same, the civil revision is not maintainable.

(3.) IT is a well recognized rule of statutory construction that a proviso to a section is not independent of the section calling for independent consideration or construction detached from the construction to be placed on the main section, as it is merely subsidiary to the main section and is to be construed in the light of the section itself. The object of a proviso is to carve out from the main section a class or category to which the main section does not apply; and in so carving out, the Court has always to bear in mind what is the class referred to in the section and must also remember that the carving out intended by the proviso is from the particular class and in the particular circumstances dealt with by the main section. In the decision reported in I.T. Commissioner v. P. Krishna : A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 59, this principle is recognized, though it has been observed: