Sundari and Ors. v. Laxmi and Ors.

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J.-Tuis appeal is by special leave granted by. this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore in C.R.P. No. 931 of 1967 allowing a revision against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in RI.A. No. 2266 of 1966 in O.S. No. 91 of 1950. T)Ie facts of,the case may be briefly stated. The parties to this litigation ard goviirnid by the Aliyasanthana l&w prenl•nt in the diitrict of South Kanara. They were members of a kutumba descended from a common ancestre.• by name Manjekke. One Parameshwari and her son and daughter instituted Original Suit No. 91 of 1950 before the Court of the 1ubordinate Judge at South Kanara for partition of properties in accordance with the provisions of the Madra• Aliyasnnthana Act, 1949, (Madras Act IX of 1949). The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court upholding the defence raised that a certain award decree made in Original Suit No. 314 of 1924 on the file of the District MunsifI, Mangalore, amounted to a partition within the ·meaning of sulJ.:section (6) of Section 36 of the Madras Aliy-asanthana Act, and therefore another suit for partition was not maintainable. .· G .

Though the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the suit for · partition was ·not sustainable it proceeded to record findin~ determining the shares to which the members of several. brancbe. are entitled in the event of there being a decree for partition. On appeal by the plaintiffs' the High Court .of Karnataka reversed the decision of the Subordiuate Judge and held that the award . decree in Original Suit No. 314 of 1924 on the file of the Di•trict Munsiff Mangalore, did not amount to a partition and . that the suit for partition was maintainable. The High Court passed a preliminary d.ecree on 28th June, 1961 and. remanded the suit for further proceedings. The Advooates on both sides agreed regarding the shares of the parties and the Court directed a preliminary decree for partition and specified the shares as found by the Trial Court in Paragraph 1 7 of its judgment.. The shares were determined on a joint memo filed by the parties on 25th September, 1963.

The shares allotted to defendants 22 to 24 were 85,176 out of a total of 615,264 shares. Defendants 22, 23 and 24 are all male members of the kutumba and are 'nissanthathi kavaru'. The 24th Defendant died before file preliminary decree was passed on 10th June, 1957 and his wife and children were brought on record as legal representatiyes. The 23rd defendant died on 9th March, 1962, after the passing of the preliminary decree. His wife and children were brought on record as legail representatives~ ·During the final decree proceedings the legal representatives of the 24th respondent filed R.I.A. No. 2259 of 1966 and the representatives of the 23rd defendant filed R.I.A. No. 2266 of 1966 claiming that out of the share allotted to the kavaru of defendants 22 to 24, one-third representing the share or interest of the 24th and the 23rd defendants be allotted to them.

Tills petition was opposed on the groU1Jd that each one of the defendants 22, 23 and 24 was a separate nissanthathi kavaru and on the death of each of the defendants 24 and 23 bis share or interest devolved upon the santhathi kavarus nearest to bim to which defendants 11, 12 and 16 belonged. The plea of the 22nd defendant was that all the three defendantS 22, 23 and 24 constitnterl one single nissanthathi kavaru to which, under the preliminary decree one single or joint share was allotted, and therefore the said share survived to the last surviving member thereof (22nd defendant), and that no devolution on a santhathl kavaru under sub-section (5) of section 36 is possible until the last member of the nissanthathi kavaru, viz., the 22nd defendant, dies. The trial court found that in the High .

Court decree dated 20-6-1961 defendants 22 to 24 were allotted shares jointly. ft rejected the contentions of both the applicants i.e. the legal representatives of defendants 23 and 24 as well as the surviving defendant 22 holding. that defendants 22, 23 and 24 formed three different nfssanthilthi kqvarus as their mother was dead at the time of the filing of the suit and partition was effected and there was undivided interest in the property when they died so as to attraet the provisions of I l SUND ARI v. LAXMI (Kai las am' l.) section 7 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The tiial coun dismissed both I.As. 2259 & 2266/66.

The High Coun on appeal while agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Civil Judge that the clear intention of defendants 22, 23 and 24 was that one share be jointly allotted to three of them together held that when the 24th defendant died he had an undivided · interest in the properties of the, kavaru of himself and defendants 22 and 23 and that the said undivided interest quantified as provided by the explanation to sub-section (Z) of section 7 of the Hindu Succession Act, and would devolve by intestate succession under the said, Succession Act. Similarly when the 23rd defendant died he had an undivided interest in the property jointly belonging to himself and the 22nd defendant. That undivided interest also got quantified under se~tion 7 (2) of Hindu Succession Act. The High Court allowed the appeals holding that the property descended according to the rules of intestate succession contained in the Hindu Succession Act.

In this appeal the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is fuat the High Court was in error in holding that defendants 22, 23 and 24 were male members of one nissanthathi kavaru and that the three defendants did not constitute three different nissanthathi kavarus. On a consideration of the plaint, the written statement, the consent memo and the preliminary decree passed by the High Court we a.gree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. The suit was filed by one Parameshwari and her son and daughter as plaintiffs in O.S. No. 91 of 1950 praying ~or a partition of the properties and for allotment of her share to her. In the suit defendants 22, 23 and 24 were made parties as they belonged to the kavaru of their mother.

In paragraph 10 of the written statement defendants 22, 23 and 24 stated that they have no objection to the partition of the family properties according to the rights of the parties but submitted that in the event of partition their share should be allotted to them and further the plaintiffs should be directed to surrender possession df the properties in Schedule I of the written statem~nt. The written statement was filed jointly by the three defendants and their plea was that in the event of partition their share should be allotted to them. The statement clearly indicates that the· three defendants together asked for allotment of their shares in the family properties. There was no dispute as to the quantum· of shares to the parties. The trial court has recorded :

"The learned Advocates on both sides are agreed that the suit be decreed for partition in respect of the plaint schedule immovable properties; they are also agreed that the share!! be divided as indicated in para 1 7 of the Trial Court's judgment. We direct that a preliminary decree for partition of the plaint echedule immovable properties be dra.1\'11 up accordingly." Para 17 of the trial court's judgment reads : "In case this suit is to be decreed, the sJmres to which the several parties are entitled to will be as set out iiili the joint memo filed by the parties on 25-9-1963, which are as follows." Shares of defendants 22, 23 and 24 are mentioned as 85,176 out of total share of 615,264. On a consideration of the pleadings the consent memo and the preliminary decree the IDgh Court came to the conclusion that the shares were allotted to the three defendants jointly.

We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and hold that the three defendants were allotted jointly a share in the partition. The le~ed counsel for the appellant submitted that this finding . of fact would not conclude the appeal. He submitted that in law there was no undivided interest in the property which defendants 24 and 23 owned at the time of their death as required under section 7(2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The submission on !hi& aspect is two-- fol(!. (l)(a) Defendants cannot claim that they were members of-the kavam of their mother as their mother was dead at the time when the partition suit was filed : (2) (b) Under the E.xplanation to sec. 35(2) a male member of 11. kutumba is deemed to be kavaru. Therefore each one of the three members woulcl. constitute a separate kavaru and therefore there was no undivided interest as wnongst them.

The filing ar partition suit by one df the members of the kutumba would have the effect of effecting the severance of the status and therefore there was no longer any undivided interest between the several members of the kutumba. Before dealing with the contentiops it is necessary to briefly refer to the salient features of Aliyasanthana law. In the well-known treatise on Malabar and Aliyasanthana law by P. R. Sundara Aiyar, a distinguished Judge of the Madras IDgh Court, and edited by t SUNDARI v. LAXMI (Kailasam, 1.) B. Sitarama Rao, an eminent lawyer of the Madras High Court who hailed from the South Kanara, the Aliyasanthana law is stated to imply a rule of inheritance under which property descends in the line of neohews. The term "Aliyasanthana Law" is the exact Cainarese equivalent of the Malayalam term Marumakkathaya:ri. Aliyasanthana Law differs but slightly from the Marumak:kathayam system.

In its main features viz., impartibility, descent in the line of females and nori· recognition of marriage as a legal institution it completely agrees with the 0 Marumak:kathayam law. In Aliyasanthana law the males are equal proprietors with females and joint management .is recognised, while · the Marumakkathayam law does not recognise a right to join managemen~. The succession to the separate property of an individual mem· ber in Aliyasanthana law is to the nearest heirs and not to the Tarwad as in the Marumak:kathayam law. The succession of the hem of the ieparate property is, recognised by the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949, sections 18 to 24. On the facts of the present case itis not disputed that defendants 22, 23 :md 24 have enjoyed the interest as nissanthathi kavaru and on partition are entitled only to life-interest in the properties allotted to them under section 36(3) of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act.

The. question that arises for consideration ls how far the Aliyasanthana Act regarding partition and succession has been affected by the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17th June, 1956. The preamble states that the Act amends and modifies the law relating to intestate succes•ion among !Hindus. Though the preamble refers only to "Intestate sue· cession" as the title '!Hindu Act' indicates it relates to the law of succession among !Hindus and not merely to inlestate succession as mentioned in the Preamble. The law has brought about radical changes in the Jaw of •uccession. The law is applicable to all Hindus as provided in section 2 of the Act. It is made cleair that the law is applicable not only to persons governed by Dayabhaga and Mitak- ~hara law but also to persons governed by Aliyasanthana, Marumakkathayam and Narnbudri systems of Hindu Law. Sectifm;

4 of the Act gives overriding application to the provisions of the Act and lays down that in respect of any ot the matters dealt with in the Act all existing laws whether in the shape of enactment or otherwise which are in- . consistent with the Act are repealed. Any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act ceases to apply to Hindus in oo far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act. It is therefore clear that the provisions of Aliya· 611nthana law whether customary. or statutory will cease to apply, in so far as they are incomiiotent with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The scheme of the Hindu Succession Act in the matter of succession to the property of Hindu dyini;: intestate is provided in sections 8. lb 13. Sections 15 and 16 provide for the succession to the property of a female dying intestate.

Section 17 specifically provides for application of the Hindu Succession Act to persons governed by Maliibar and Aliyasanthana law. Section 14 does not relate to succession but provides that 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 limited owner. Section 7 (2) is the section which relates to the devolution of an undivided interest in the property of a kutumba or kavaru and may be extracted in full. "7 ( 2) When a Hindu to whom the Aliyasanthana law would have applied if this Act had not been passed dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his or her death an undivided interest in the prop;!rty of Kutumba or Kavaru, as the case may be, his or her interest in the property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the vase may be, under this Act a'nd not accordiog to the Aliyasanthana law.

Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu in the property of a kutwnba or kavaru shall be deemed to be the share in the property of the kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, that would have fallen to him or her if a partition of that property per capita had been made immediately before his or her death among all the members of the kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, then living whether he or she was entitled to claim such partition or not under the Aliyasantha'na law, and such share shall be deemed to have been allotted t'o him or her absolutely." Under the customary law and under the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949 the undivided interest in the property of a Hindu in Aliyas~ anthana kutumba or kavaru devolved according to the provisions of the Aliyasanthana law but after the introduction of sec. 7 (2) the devolution by testamentary or intestate succession is under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. . The Explanation to sec.

7(2) pro\ides that the interest in the property of the kutumba or kavaru of a Hindu shall be deemed to be the share in the property of the kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, that would have falkn to him or her if a 11ariition of that property per capita had been made immediately before his or her death among all the members -of the kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, then livini;: whether he or she was enlitled 1 ... ' SUNDAJV v. LAXMI (Kai las am, J.) to claim such partition or not under the Aliyasanthana law, and such share shall be deemed to have been allotted to him or her absolutely. The result of the Explanation is that the undivided interest in the property of the Hindu in the Aliyasanthana kutumba or kavaru shall devolve as provided for under the Hindu Succession Act and that the share of the Hindu shall be deemed to have been allotted to him absolutely. The Explanation to sec.

30 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that a member of an Aliyasanthana kutumba or kavaru can dispose of his interest in the kutumba properties by a will. Under the Aliyasanthana law the individual cannot dispose cf his interest in the kutumba by a will. Explanation to sec. 30 ( 1) enables the male 'Hindu in a kutumba or karavu to dispose of his interes.t in a kutumba or kavaru which is deemed to be property capabk of being disposed of by him. Thus while sec. 7(2) provides that when a Hindu to whom the Aliyasanthana law would have applied if this Act had not been passed dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his or her death an undivided interest in the property of kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, under the Hindu Succession Act, sec. 30 enables the male Hindu to dispose of his undivided interest in kutumba or kavaru by a will. While these two sections relate to unr divided interest in the property of the kutumba or kavaru sec.

17 deals with the suc~ession to the separate property of a Hindu male under the Aliyasanthana law. It provides that sectio'ns 8, 10, 15 and 23 shall have effect with certain modifications in relation to persons who would have been governed by the Aliyasanthana law. Section 8 provides that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve as specified in the section. The succession to the property of a male Hindu belongnig to a kutumba or kavaru of Aliyasanthana law dying intestate would be governed by the provisions of sec. 8 as modified by sec. 17 the effect being that the succession as provided for under the Aliyasanthana law would not be applicable. Section 1 O .provides for the distribution of property among heirs in Class I of the Schedule. Section 15 provides the gene1al rule of succession in the case of Hindu females. The rule as to the succession is also made applicable to Hindu female under the Aliyasauthana law "~th the modifications provided for under sub-sec.

(2) of section 17. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to a Hindu governed by Aliyasanthana law. Thus sec. 17 which makes sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 applicable with certain modifications to a Hindu under the Aliyasanthana Jaw provides for succession of the separate property of a Hindu male and a female. After the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, the provisions of section 7 (2) are applicable as regards undivided interest of a Hindu governed by Aliyasantha'na law 8-531SCI/79 (1980] l S.C.R. while the provisions of the explanation to section 30 are applicable in the case of a will relating to his interest in llhe family property. Section 17 provides that sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 with modilicatiom. will apply to the separate property of a Hindu under the Aliyasa'nthana law.

Section 14 enlarges the property possessed by a. female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act by providing that she will hold the property as ll: ii owner and not as a limited owner. This provision is applicable to Hindu females and does not have the effect of enlarging a limited estate in the hands of a Hindu male. The Hindu male will be entitled only to the limited righhs as provided for under the law that is applicable to him. But when once the succ~sion opens by the death of the Hindu sec. 7 (2) provides that the smre in the undivided iatctel>t of the Hindu would devolve on his heirs under the Hindu s.cCesaion Act absolutely. A Hindu under section 30 of the Hindu Saccessio:Q Act is alw conferred the right to disposing of by will his interest ia the kutumba or kavani.

While a Hindu dies intestate his undivided interest devolves absolu,foly on his heirs, in the case of his separate property the succession is governed by the provisions of sectioru; 8, 10 and 15 of the Act as modi.tied by section 17. It may be noted that regarding the separate property of a Hindu the Madras Aliyasanthana Act provides that the provisions of sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Act would be applicable. The separate property does not revert back to the kutumba or kavaru ot the Aliyasanthana family. At the time of the partition if any kavarn taking a share is a nissanthathi kavaru, it shall have only a life-interest in the properties allotted to it under certain circumsl'ances and the property would revert back to a santhathi kavaru if it is in existence.

Section 3 6 ( 3) of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act provides that the properties allotted to a nissanthathi kavaru at a partition and in which it had only a life-interest at the time of the death of the last memlx:r, shall devolve upon the kut.umba or where the kutumba has brok'm up, at the same or at a subsequent partition, into a number of kavarus, upon the nearest santhathi ka.varu or kavarus. The devolution of the property allotted to a nissanthati kavaru which has only a life-interest devolves upon a kutumba or the nearest santhathi kavaru. This mode of devolution prescribed by section 36(5) of the Aliyasa'nthana Act has to g:iv.~ way to the provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which prescribed a different mode of succession. The effect of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act above referred to is that after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act an undivided interest of a' Hindu would devolve 'ilS provided J'oc ir· SUNDARI v. LAXMI (Kailasam, J.) cunder sec.

7 (2) while in the case of separate property it would devolve on his heirs as provided for in the Hindu Succession Act. Even though -a nissant/zathi kavaru might have a limited interest as the devolution prescribed· for in the Madras Aliyasanthana Act is no more applicable the devolution will be under the Hindu Succession Act. fa this case ihc property bas been found to be undivided as bet- ·ween defendants 22, 23 and 24 and therefore the position is that on the death of each one of the defendants his undivided intetest would -devolve on his heirs. The learned counsel for the appellants Polied on the Explanation to sec. 35 (2) of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act and submitted that every male member of a kutumba shall be deemed to be a kavaru and on filing of a suit for partition it must be deemed that every male member ·Of the kut11mba got himself separated. Kutumba is defined under cSec.

3 ( c) as mea'ning a group of persons forming a joint family ·with community of property govcrnod by the Aliyasanthana law of inheritance. Kavam is defined under sec. 3(b) (i) and (ii) as , :under:- "3(b) (i) "Kavaru", used in relation to a female, means the group of persons consisting of that female, her children and all her descendants in the female line; (ii) "Kavaru" used in re1'ation to a male, means the Kavaru of the mo_thcr of that male;" ; In the case of defendants 22, 23 and 24 _who are males the karnm would mean the kavam of the mother of that male. The male by l:timself cannot be a kavaru under the definition. By virtue of the Ex- -planation to sec. 35 (2) a male member of a kutumba is deemed to be a kavam for the purpose of Chapter V~. Chapter VI deals with partition of kutumba. In this case the suit was filed by Parmeshwari and her two children for the partition and separate possession of their share of the kutumba property.

When the suit is not filed by a male member the provisions of Chapter VI will not be applicable. ·The -deemed definition is only applicable in considering the right to claim partition. Further, when tlie plaintiff filed the suit there is no presumpction that there was a division in status of 111! the kavarus that' constituted the kutumba. The filing of the suit will no. doubt result in the· -division of the status of the plaintiff kavaru but the other kavarus may continue to be joint in the kutumba. Whether the other kavarus continued to be joint in the. kavaru or not is a. question of fact. In this case it is found there is no material to hold that there was division . ·ef status as between defendants 22, 23 and 24.. In this view the con- 1entions of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was division in status on the filing of the suit for partition or that as the mother was dead there were separate kavarus will have to be negatived. The r,liance on Explanation to sec.

35(2) will not help the appellants. In Jalaja Shedthi & Ors. v. Lakshmi Shedthi & Ors.( 1) one C and his sister and her sons were members of an Aliyasanthana Kutumba. C executed a will on January 15, 1957 bequeathing his, interest in favour of the appellants. On January 25, 1957 the respondents issued a notice to C stating that he was the manager of the divided family, that he was a nissanthathi kavaru while ,the respondents were santhathi kavarus, as such there were only two kavarus and that they had decided to divide the properties between C and themsdves. The respondents demanded a share belonging to their kavaru from out of · the entire movable and immovable properties of the family. C replied on January 24, 1957. that there were only two kavarus in the family and both the kavarus were nissanthathi kavarus. C also expressed that he had no objection to the claim for partition made by the respondents and was prepared to effect it provided the respondents cooperated.

C subsequently died on February 13, 1957 after the coming. into force of the Succession Act On March 23, 1957 the appellants gave a notice to the respondents. claiming a· separate share under C's will. The respondents replied to the notice on the same day denying that the appellants had any share because according to them C was entitled only to a life-interest under the Aliyasanthana law. It was held by this Court that there was neither a kutumba nor can C be a kavaru as the two kavarus after the division in status became only one kavaru, viz. that of respondent No. 1, sister of C. It was held that the C is not a kavaru within the meaning of sec. 3 (b) of the Madras Act because under sec. 3 (b r (ii), there being no female line, it is only C's mother who can be a kavaru but not C. If C is not a kavaru there is no property of a kavaru, which can be disposed of under sec. 30 of the Succession Act.

Even under the explanation fo that section, the life-interest which C had on severance of statns is not properly capable of being disposed of by a will nor could it devolve by survivorship. As he is no longer a kavaru and liad therefore no interest in the property of the kiivaru, C'.s life-interest is also not enlarged under section 7 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, into an absolute interest. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot also be availed of as the life-interest of a male under the Aliyasanthana law cannot enlarge under section 14. (I) [1974] I S.C.R. 707. SUND ARI v. LAXMI ( Kai/asam, J.) Ja/aja Shedthi & Or's. v. Lakshmi Shedthi & Ors. (supra) relates to a will executed on 15th January, 1958 by Chandayya Shetty bequeathing his interest in favour of his wife and children.

A week after the execution of the will on 22nd fanuary, the first respondent i.e. the sister of Chandayya Shetty and her children issued a notice to Chandayya Shetty stating that they had decided to divide the properties between Chandayya She tty and· them&olves and demanded a share belonging to their kavaru. Chandayya Shetty subsequently died on 13th February, 1957. On 23rd March, 1957 Chandayya Shetty's wife and her children gave notice claiming a separate share under the will of Chandayya Shetty. It was found that on a demand for partition there was a division of status though partition by metes and bounds had not taken place. There was only two kavarus and in the circumstanres it could not be pleaded that joint status between other kavarus continued. There was therefore no undivided interest of a coparcener, within the meaning of section 7 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act.

If there was no undivided inDorest it is clear that provisions of section 7(2) of the Hindu Succession Act cannot apply. 111 considering the effect of the will the Court agreed with the view of a full Bench of the High Court of Mysore in Sundara Adappa and Ors. v. Girija & Ors.(!) It was contended before the full Bench that by virtne of sec. 30(1) of the Hindu Succession Act the right of the first defendant who had obtained a preliminary decree for his 75/360th share of his !Jr<>- perties became capable of being disposed of by will and therefore the children of the first defendant would be entitled to the share in accordance with the terms thereof. The Mysore High Court held that the benefit referred to in the Explanation to sec. 30(1) is confined to the int:rest of a male Hindu in his kutwnba and would not apply to the proper!)' obtained by him as his share in the preliminary decree. This Conrt in approving the above observations observed.

"The above statement of the law which meets the several contentions raised before us is in consonance with our own reading of the provisions of the Madras Act and the Succession Act". This Court rejected the pleas that the effect of section 17 ofi the Snccession Act was not considered in the Mysore case, holding that the question was not relevant in the case before them or in the Mysore case because sec. 17 of the Succession Act applies to provisions of sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 which dealt with intestacy. As we are concerned in the present c-ase with the iniestate succession to tl1e estate of defendants 24 and 23 the decis1ons are not applicable to the facts of this case. (l) A.l.R. 1962 Mys. 72. (1980] l S.C.R. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that ".Ven if the property of the defendants 24 and 23 were held to be separate property the succession would be in accordance with Hindu Succession Act· by virtue of the provisions of sec.

17 of the Hindu Succession Act will have to be considered. Chapte.r II of the Hindu Succession Act which deals with the intestate succession is applicable. to the property of Hindus and the provisions of this Chapter would prevail over any law which was in force immediately before the commencement of this Act. Therefore the provisions relating to succession of Aliyasanthana Hindus would be by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and, not by the Aliyasautbana law. Section 7 (2) and sec. 17 of the Hindu Succession Act deal specifically with succession of the property of a Hindu belonging to Aliyasantbana family. While sec. 7(2) relates to devolution of undivided interest in the property of a kutumba or kavaru of a Hindu belonging to an Aliyasanthana family sec. 17 . makes the provisions of sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 with the modifications specified in sec. 17 to the devolution of separate property 'of a Hindu under the Aliyasanthana law. According to the provisions of sec.

36(5) the property allotted to nissanthathi kavaru at a partition is enjoyed by it only as a life-interest and at the time of the death of the last of its ,members shall devolve. upon the kutumba. This devolution of the life-interest is according to sec. 36(5). When a Hindu governed by the Aliyasantbana law dies possessed of a lifeinterest, after his death the property devolves under the Hindu S uccession Act and not under t:\le' Aliyasanthana Act arn:I therefore would not revert back to the kutumba. This Court in Jalaja Shedthi & Ors. v. Lakshmi Shedthi & Ors. (supra) while deciding the rights of the parties under a will execnted by a Hindu governed by Aliyasanthana law l:teld at p. 719 : "Similarly on the same parity of reasoning, when there are two kavarus, a demand for partition would disrupt them and ·Chiindayya Sbetty could no longer claim that be had an undivided interest within the meaning of sec.

7(2) of the Succession Act, and if he has no undivided interest in the pr~erty, his interest cannot be enlarged into an absolute estate nor can his interest in the property devolve upon his heirs by intestate succession.'' The words underliaed by us relate to intestate succession and the Court has specifically stated that it was not referring to the provis\ons of sec. 17 of the Hindu Succession Act as it related to intestate succession. These observations relating to intestate succession are therefore in the nature of I\.... obiter. The separate property is not enlarged into an absolute ei~te under sec. 7 (2) but on death it devolves on the heirs as provided under the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore it will not revert back to the kutumba but only to the heirs as provided for under the Hie.du I SUNDARI v. LAXMI (Kailasam, J.) Succession Act. Similarly in the observations at p. 721 of the Reports where it has observed :

"In this case also as already stated, there is no ~avaru of Chandayya Shetty, and on separation he had only a lifeirnterest which is not· a. heritable property and cannot be disposed of by a will, nor could it devolve as on intestacy." The reference to devolution on intestacy is again in the nature of obiter dicta. On a consideration of the contehtions mad·~ by the learned counsel appearing for both the pqrties we agree with the conclusion reached by the High Court and dismiss this appeal with costs. V.D.K. Appeal dismissed .