LexANGURBALA MULLICK versus DEBABRATA MULLICK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1125 "provision · may be made in any enactment so extended for the repeal or amendment of any corresponding law (other than a Central Act) which is for the time being applicable to that Part C State," is ultra vires the Indian Parliament which passed the Act. Agent for the President of India, the State of "Bom- bay, the State of Madras and the State of Mysore : P. A. Mehta. Agent for the State of Uttar Pradesh: C. P. Lal. Agent for Capt. Deep Chand and Pt. Amarnath Bhardwaj : R. S. N arula. Agent for the Ajmer Electric Supply Co. Ltd. : M. S. K. Sastri. Agent for the Municipal Committee of Ajmer, the Maiden's Hotel and Runglal Nasirabad Rajinder Narain. Agent for Shri Munshi Lal and others : Shankar Das. ANGURBALA MULLICK ti • . DE BAB RAT A MULLICK. [SA1Ym FAzL Au, MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act (XVIII of 1937), s. 3- <, Right to shebaitship-Whether "property"-Applicability of Act- Widow's right to joint shebaitship with son-Construction of deeds -"Heirs of A," meaning of. The word "property" as used in s. 3 (l) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, includes shebaitship which is a re- cognised form of property under Hindu law, and there is nothing in any of the provisions of the said Act which excludes from the y scope and operation of the Act succession to shebaitship. Even assuming that ·the word "property" in Act XVIII of 1937 is ·to be interpreted in a narrower sense, inasmuch as succession to shebaitship follows succession to property in its ordinary or secular sense and the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1951 111 re The Delhi Larva A.ct, 1912,. etc. ./Jose J. 1951 .Angurba/a Mullick•· Debabrata Mullick Mukherjea J. 1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] 1937, fays down th~ law of. succession to property in general, the devolution of shcba1tsh1p will also be governed by the said Ate . Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi [1945] upon. Suryanarayanacharyulu v. Seshamma 103) approved. F.C.R. I, commented (A.LR. 1950 Mad. A deed of dedication of properties to a deity provided that the scttlor shall during her life-time be the shebait of the said deity and that after her death, her son M shall be the shebait. It provid- ed further that after M's death, M's wife K and after K's death, the heirs of M shall be the shebaits. If M died without any issue or without giving authority to his wife to adopt, M shall be compe- tent to appoint a shebait by will, but in case M died without any issue, the shebaitship shall, after the death of his wife devolve upon his heirs under the Hindu law. M died in 1942 leaving a son by his first wife K, and a second wife. In a suit by the second wife for a declaration that she was entitled to the shebait- ship as sole shebait or in any event as a j"oint shcbait with her step-son : Held, that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, was applicable to the case and the plaintiff was entitled to ~oint shebaitship with her step-son. Held also, on the construction of the deed, (i) that the words uheirs of the said M" occurring in the deed were not words -.>£ gift but only words regulating devolution; and (ii) that heirs oi M did not mean issue of M but his legal heirs and there was nothing in the deed to show that the son of M had i right to succeed in '~ preference to the widow. ,... CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1951. Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated the 19th May, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C.J ..• and Sinha J.) in Appeal No. 29 of 1950 arising out of a decree dated 9th February, 1949, in S~it No. 2481 of 1947. Bakshi Tek Chand (S. Banerji, with him) for the appellant. - S. Bannerjee (B. Sen and S. C. Roy, with him}, for the respondent. 1951. May 3. The Judgment of Fazal Ali, Maha- jan and Mukherjea JJ. was delivered by Mukhcrjca J. Chandrasckhara Aiyar J. delivered a separate but concurring judgment. .( S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1127 MuKHEKJEA J.-This appeal is directe.d against an appellate judgment of the Calcutta High C.Ourt, dated the 19th May, 1950, which affirmed the judgment of a single Judge of the Original Side of ~at C.Ourt passed on 9th February, 1949, in Suit No. 2481 of 1947. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, is the widow of one Mrityunjoy Mullick, a wealthy Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.