Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State enactment, Act XXX of 1976, can override the Central enactment, Act XXX of 1956. 2. Whether the Act XXX of 1976 can override Section 6 of Act XXX of 1956 under the provisions of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. Whether a Hindu converted into Muslim can claim any right under Central Act XXX of 1956 or Kerala Act XXX of 1976. 4. Whether the disrupted members can claim a right over the property of one of the disrupted members after his disruption as it has become joint family property by birth of a male member. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the State enactment, Act XXX of 1976, can override the Central enactment, Act XXX of 1956: The court analyzed the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India to determine the precedence of laws. Article 254(1) states that if any provision of a State law is repugnant to a Union law, the Union law shall prevail. However, Article 254(2) provides an exception where a State law, if reserved for the President's consideration and receiving his assent, will prevail in that State. The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Act XXX of 1976) received the President's assent on 10-8-1976. Therefore, the court held that the State enactment can override the Central enactment within the State of Kerala. 2. Whether the Act XXX of 1976 can override Section 6 of Act XXX of 1956 under the provisions of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India: The court found that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act XXX of 1956) relates to the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. However, the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976, abolished the concept of coparcenary and replaced it with tenancy in common. As the Act XXX of 1976 received the President's assent, it prevails over the provisions of Section 6 of Act XXX of 1956 in Kerala. Thus, the court ruled that the succession should be governed by Section 8 of Act XXX of 1956, which deals with intestate succession, rather than survivorship under Section 6. 3. Whether a Hindu converted into Muslim can claim any right under Central Act XXX of 1956 or Kerala Act XXX of 1976: The court addressed the issue of the second plaintiff, who converted to Islam, and whether he could claim rights under the Hindu Succession Act. The court noted that this issue was not pressed during the hearing. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's finding that the converted individual is still entitled to a share of the property. 4. Whether the disrupted members can claim a right over the property of one of the disrupted members after his disruption as it has become joint family property by birth of a male member: The court examined the historical context of the property, noting that a partition in 1958 disrupted the joint family status, and the property was held as separate property by Jinachandra Gowder. After the birth of another son (5th defendant), the property became joint family property again. However, with the enactment of Act XXX of 1976, the property was held as tenants in common. Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to their respective shares as per the intestate succession under Section 8 of Act XXX of 1956. Separate Judgments: S.A. 469/1992: The appellants filed a suit for damages against the respondent for plucking coffee and pepper from the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court confirmed the dismissal, holding that the defendant, being a co-owner, could not be restrained from utilizing the property. The second appeal was also dismissed. S.A. 958/1989-E: The appellants sought eviction of tenants, but the trial court found that the property was leased by a co-owner (DW2). The appellate court confirmed the dismissal of the eviction suit. The second appeal was dismissed. S.A. 327/1992-E: The appellants sought a permanent injunction against the defendant from trespassing. The trial court dismissed the suit, recognizing the defendant as a co-sharer. The appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The second appeal was dismissed. Conclusion: All the appeals were dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The court upheld the interpretation of the relevant laws and confirmed the rights of the parties as tenants in common under the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1976, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
|