SAMUDRALA VARAHA NARASIMHACHARLU Vs. SAMUDRALA VENCATA SINGARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Appeal Suit No. 170 of 1901, three learned Judges of this Court Subramania Iyer, Benson and Bhashiam Iyengar JJ. decided that succession in a re-united family governed by Mitakshara Law is by survivorship, and that the son of a re-united member of the family is Re-united". They say that the contrary contention is not supported by any text of Hindu Law and is not in accord with the principles of the Mitakshara Law.

(2.) This decision, if we follow it, is sufficient to dispose of the present case. We have here a contest as to the succession to the son of re-united member of a family, the widow: claiming on the one hand and on the other the brothers of her husband's father, re-union having been effected between the brothers before the birth of the deceased.

(3.) If the decision, in Appeal Suit No. 170 of 1901, is to be followed, the widow's claim cannot be supported and the appeal must be allowed, and we are asked to decline to follow that decision and to hold that in a re-united family there is no survivorship and that no one can be "re-united" who was not one of those who actually divided and again joined together.