This article is authored by Gauri Bansal and edited by Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR and Adv. Prapti Singh.
SC/0716/1986
FACTS
The petitioner provoked by her own experience sought to secure equal inheritance rights for Indian women belonging to the Syrian Christian community of Travancore by bringing them within the ambit of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, enumerated that the following provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, in Sections 24,28, and 29 discriminated against women and violated their constitutional right to equality guaranteed by Article 14.
A daughter was not entitled to succeed to the property of the intestate(not having a will at the moment of death) in the same share as the son.
She was entitled to one-fourth of the share of the son or rupees 5000, whichever being less.
The daughter was not be entitled to anything if “Streedhan” was promised or provided to her by the intestate, or by his wife, husband or their heirs.
Whether the provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, were ultra vires the Constitution?
QUESTIONS OF LAW
Whether, with the enactment of the Part-B States (Laws) Act, 1951, intestate succes- sion was to be governed by the Indian Succession Act 1925 or the Travancore Christian Succession Act?
HELD
Tracing the history of the legislation in question, that is the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, the Court observed that prior to 1949, the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, governed intestate succession to property of the members of the Indian Christian community in the princely state of Travancore. However, post 1949, with merger of the State of Travancore with the State of Cochin and the formation of part State of Travancore-Cochin, the Parliament enacted the Part-B States (Laws) Act. The Part-B States (Lows) Act called for the application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to all the Part B States.
The Court decided the case holding that the Part-B States (Lows) Act excluded the operation of the Travancore Act and thereby did away with the need for examining the first question of the constitutionality of the Act.
The Court established that the law applicable from April 1, 1951 to intestate succession among Christians of the Travancore area of the State of Kerala is the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Thereafter, the High Court of Kerala ruled that the Cochin Christian Succession Act, 1921 also stood repealed by Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951.
The Supreme Court entitled Syrian Christian women to an equal share in their father’s property. This brought them similar rights as members of the Christian community in the rest of India who were governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Through this judgment Christians all over India were governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which provided that property of an intestate be distributed equally among the male and female children.
