Mary Roy v. State of Kerala

Supreme Court of India, 24 February 1986, 2 judges, 1986 AIR 1011; 1986 SCR (1) 371; 1986 SCC (2) 209

On the extension of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to Travancore-Cochin by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 stood repealed, and intestate succession among Indian Christians there is governed by the 1925 Act.

Facts

The writ petitions under Article 32 challenged the rules of intestate succession in the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, which applied to Indian Christians in the former State of Travancore. The petitioners contended that the rules discriminated against women, for instance by giving a widow or mother only a life interest in immovable property and limiting a daughter to one-fourth of a son's share or Rs. 5,000, whichever was less, and that Sections 24, 28 and 29 violated Article 14. Travancore had merged with Cochin in 1949. The Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 extended the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to Part B States from 1 April 1951. Judicial opinion had differed on whether the 1092 Act survived: a single Judge of the Madras High Court took one view, while a Division Bench of that Court and the former Travancore-Cochin High Court took the other.

Questions before the Court

After the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 came into force, does the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 continue to govern intestate succession among Indian Christians in the former State of Travancore, or does the Indian Succession Act, 1925 govern it?
If the 1092 Act continues, are Sections 24, 28 and 29 of that Act void under Article 14?

What the Court held

Section 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 repeals any corresponding law in force in a Part B State. The Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 corresponded to Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as both dealt with intestate succession among Indian Christians and covered the same field.
The 1092 Act was therefore expressly repealed in its entirety from 1 April 1951. It was not saved by Section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; holding otherwise would subvert the legislative intent, and nothing in the 1951 Act expressly saved it.
Section 29(2) is a qualifying or excepting provision, not a provision incorporating other succession laws by reference.
Intestate succession to the property of Indian Christians in the former State of Travancore is governed by Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It was unnecessary to decide the Article 14 challenge. The writ petitions were allowed.

Why it matters

The judgment decides that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 stood repealed from 1 April 1951 and that Indian Christians of the former Travancore area are governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in intestate succession. The Court noted that the question affected the property rights of Christian women in that area. It decided the case on repeal under Section 6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 and left the Article 14 challenge undecided.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“When sec.6 of Part States (Laws) Act, 1951 provided in clear and unequivocal terms that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 which was a law force in Part States of Travancore-Cochin corresponding to Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 shall stand repealed, it would be nothing short of subversion of the legislative intent to hold that the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 did not stand repealed but was saved by sec.29 sub-sec.(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.”

Bhagwati, C.J.Page 7 of the judgment

“We are, therefore, of the view that on the coming into force of Part-B States (Laws) Act, 1951 the Travancore Cochin Succession Act, 1092 stood repealed and Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 became applicable and intestate succession to the property of members of the Indian Christian community in the territories of the erstwhile State of Travancore was thereafter governed by Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.”

Bhagwati, C.J.Page 8 of the judgment

“But when the legislature intends to adopt this legislative device the language used by it is entirely distinct and different from the one employed in section 29 subsec.(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The opening part of section 29 sub-sec.(2) is intended to be a qualificatory or excepting provision and not a provision for incorporation by reference.”

Bhagwati, C.J.Page 8 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Section 29, Indian Succession Act, 1925
Section 6, Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951
Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092

Case and bench

Parties: Mrs. Mary Roy etc. etc. v. State of Kerala
Case: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8260 of 1983 etc.
Decided: 24 February 1986
Bench: P.N. Bhagwati (CJ), R.S. Pathak
Opinions: Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati, C.J.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.