TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of deciding that question of law may now be stated. One Somasundra Udayar of Poongavur village in Tanjavoor District died Prior to 1937 leaving behind him his widow Sellathachi and two daughters Kuppaimal and Punithavalli Ammal. The properties left behind by the deceased were inherited by his widow and they were in her possession when the Act came into force on June 17, 1956. By Virtue of Section 14(1) of the Act Sellathachi became the full owner of the properties inherited by her from her husband. On July 13, 1956, she adopted the plaintiff--1st respondent in this appeal. Thereafter on June 19, 1957 she settled 9 acres 16 cents of land and half share in a house inherited by her from her husband on her daughter Punithavalli Ammal, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adoption--see Krishnamurthi Vasudeorao Deshpande v. Dhruwaraf( [1962]2SCR813 .) In fact under the Benaras School of Mitakshara rule where a male coparcener is not entitled to alienate even for value his undivided interest in the coparcenary property without the consent of the other coparceners, the alienation effected by a sole surviving male coparcener can be successfully challenged by a person adopted subsequent to the alienation. The fiction of relation back has been given full effect by courts and consequences spelled out as if the fiction is a fact. The adopted son is deemed for all practical purposes, subject to some minor exceptions, to have born as an aurasa son on the date his adoptive father died. Admittedly but for the relevant p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e estate of her deceased husband but she took only an estate known as widow's estate. After her death the property devolved on the nearest reversioner of her husband. Section 14(1) of the Act made an important departure in that respect. That section provides : Any property possessed by a female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. 6. The explanation to the section is not necessary for our present purpose. It was conceded at the bar that Sellathachi was in possession of the property in dispute on the date the Act came into force. By virtue of the aforesaid provision, she became the full owner of the property on that da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof. That provision makes a clear departure from the Hindu law texts or rules. Those texts or rules cannot be used for circumventing the plain intendment of the provision. 7. In our judgment the learned judges of the Madras High Court were not right in limiting the scope of Section 14(1) by taking the aid of the fiction mentioned earlier. That in our opinion is wholly impossible. On the point under consideration the decision of the Bombay High Court in Yamunabai and Anr. v. Ram Maharaj Shreedhar Maharaj and Anr.A.I.R. 1960 Bom. 463 lays down the law correctly. 8. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
