MRS. MARY ROY ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 26-02-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
371 
MRS. MARY ROY K'l'C. ·:rm:. 
Vo 
STATE OF KFJIALA & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 26, 1986 
[P.N. BHAQ<'ATI, C.J. 
AND R.S. PATHAK, J.] 
Intestate Succession to the property of a member of the 
Indian christian Comnrunity in the territories originally 
forming part of· the erstwhile State of Travancore - Merger of 
State of Travancore with State of Cochin in July 1949 and 
enactment of Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 providing for 
extension of certain Parliamentary statutes to Part B St~tes -
Consequential effect of the extension of Indian Succession 
Act, 1925 - Whether the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or the old 
Travancore Cochin Succession Act 1092 (Kollan Era) will govern 
the intestate succession from the date of extension -
Indian 
-~ Succession Act, section 29(2), scope of - Legislative device 
~ of incorporation by reference, explained. 
,. 
Prior to July 1949, the State of Travancore waa a 
princely State and the law in force in the territories of that 
State in regard to intestate succession to the property of the 
members of the Indian Christian Comml!lity waa the Travancore 
Christian Succession Act, 1092 (Kollan Era). Under the said 
Act, a widow or mother becoming entitled under sections 16, 
17, 21 & 22 shall have only life interest terminable at death 
or on remarriage and a daughter shall not be entitled to 
succeed to the property of the intestate in the same share aa 
I the son but she will be entitled to one-fourth the value of 
the share of the son or Rs. 5000 whichever is less and even 
this amount she will not be entitled on intestacy, if 
Streedhanom waa provided or promised to her by the intestate 
or in the life time. of the intestate, either by his wife or 
husband or after the death of such wife or husband by her or 
his heirs. · 
In or about July 1949, the former State of Travancore 
merged with the former State of Cochin to form Part B State of 
_ 
Travancore-<:ochin. With a view to bring!.ng about uniformity of 
'llt1egislation in the whole of India, including Part-B States, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Parliament enacted Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 providing 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] i s.c.R. 
for extension to Part B States certain Parliamentary Statutes .> 
prevailing in rest of India, including the Indian Succession 
Act, 1925. As to the impact of the extension of the Indian 
Succession Act, 1925, that is to say, whether it impliedly 
repealed the Travancore-<:hristian Succession Act, 1092, diver-
gent judicial opinions were handed over one by a Single Judge 
of the Madras High Court and the contrary one by the Division 
Bench of the Madras High Court and the former Travancore-
Cochin High 
Court. The 
petitioners therefore, have 
now 
challenged, under Article 32 of the Constitution, Sections 24, r...,. 
28 and 29 of the Travancore Christian Act, 1092 as unconstitu-
tional and void. 
Allowing the petitions, the Court, 
HKU>: 1.1 On the coming into force of Part-B States 
(Laws) Act, 1951 the Travancore Succession Act, 
1092 stood 
repealed and Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession 
Act, 1925 becllllll! applicable and intestate succession to the 
property of members of the Indian Christian collllllility in the 
,_,.-
territories 
of 
the 
erstwhile 
State of 
Travancore was > 
thereafter governed by Chapter II of Part V of the Indian 
Succession Act, 1925. [382 D-E] 
· 1.2 The Indian Succession Act, 1925 was enacted by 
Parliament with a view to consolidating the law applicable to 
intestate and testamentary succession. This Act being a 
consolidating Act replaced many enactments which were in force 
at that time dealing with intestate and testant succession 
including the Indian Succession Act, 1865. So far as Indian 
~~~~~ans t:re in~::::d, suC:::st::Onll: P:rt f ~r~~:~~1":n ru!: 1 
-
e~tension of the Indian Succession Act, f925 to Part B State ·> 
of 
Travancore 
Cochin, 
the 
rules relating to intestate 
succession enacted in Chapter II of Part V would be applicable 
equally to Indian Christians in the territories of the former 
State of Travancore. [377 H, 378 A-B, F-G] 
1.3 Sub-sec~ion 2 of section 29 of the Indian Succession 
Act, 1925 did not save the provisions of the Travancore 
Christian Succession Act, 1092 and therefore, it cannot be 
said that despite the extension of the Indian Succession Act,.,-
1925 to Part B State of Travancore-<:ochin, the Travancore , 
Chriatian Succession Act, 1092 continued to apply to Indian 
MARY ROY v. STAT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.