Abraham Mathew vs Chacko Mary

K.G Balakrishnan J.

Judgment debtors are the revision petitioners. The respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.115 of 1986 for realisation of the decree amount. The decree holder is the sister of the revision petitioners. She filed the suit for Rs 5,000/-allgin that her late father had undertaken to pay this amount at the time of her marriage. However the father could not pay this amount during his life time. At the time of his death he directed his sons, the judgment debtors herein, to pay off this amount. They agreed to pay the amount. They also failed to keep their words and the suit was filed. The present contention of the revision petitioners is that the suit was filed u/s 28 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act and since this Act stood repealed with effect from 1st April 1951 a decree passed thereunder is a nullity and hence not executable. Referance was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mary Roy''s case. (Mary Roy v. State of Kerala, 1986 KLT 508 (S.C)) The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the decree under execution was not passed u/s 28 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, and even if it is assumed so, the decree is not nullity. The Travancore Christian Succession Act was passed by His Highness Maharaja of Travancoreon 21st December, 1916 to regulate and consolidate the rules applicable to intestate succession among Indian Christians in Travancore. As per Section 28 of the Act the male heirs mentioned in Group (1) of Section 25 shall be entitled to have the whole of the intestate property equally among themselves, subject to the claims of the daughter for Shreedhanam. As per Section 28 the female heirs mentioned in Group (1) of Section z5 are entitled only to Shreedhanam as n has been fixed at one fourth of the value of the share of the son or Rs. 5,000/- which ever is less. Group (1) of Section 25 consists of sons and daughters and the (sic)leneal descendants of such sons or daughters as shall have predeceased the claim of the decree holder was that her father undertook to pay her Rs. 5,000/- at the time of her marriage. Then it could as well be said that the suit was to enforce her right u/s 28 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act. The question is whether the decree passed in such a. line is enforcible against revision petitioners herein in view of Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (19S6 KLT 508 (SC)). In the above case the validity of the Travancore Christian Succession Act was challenged and the Supreme Court held that on coming into force of Part B State(Laws) Act, 1951 the Travancors Christian Succession Act 1092 stood repealed and Chapter II of Part V of 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 Successicn Act 1925. It is pertinent to note that u/s 37 of (Chapter II Part V) Indian Succession Act, the children of the deceased shall inherit the property of deceased equally. Under this Act a female child also is entitled to get a share equal to that of a male child, where as under the provision of Travancore Christian Succession Act, the rights of female child, are limited and she would get only a lesser right. So whatever the present decree holder got under the decree is lesser than what is due to her. The decree was passed at the time when she had a pre-existing right over the family property and it cannot be said that the decree is a nullity. The decision in Mary Roy''s case only lays down that the respondent was in fact entitled to a larger right The.argument to the contrary is not sustainable.

No other point arises in the civil revision petition, the same is dismissed. No costs.