Alamelu Ammal and others vs Yesodha Ammal and another

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The suit is in respect of the heirship of one Ramasamy. It appears that

he married the first respondent on 12-12-1954, under the Special Marriage Act, 1872. He then subsequently married the first plaintiff in the year

1959 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The first respondent, the first wife, obtained a succession certificate in her favour in respect of the

General Provident Fund amount of Ramaswamy, who died on 28-2-1976, as a police constable. The present suit is for a declaration that the

second wife is the legal heir of the said Ramaswamy and not the first one. The plea taken was that the marriage of the first wife was not a valid one.

The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the dismissal of the suit was upheld by the appellate Court. This is a second appeal.

The substantial questions of law put forth for the purpose of admission of this second appeal are as follows-

(1). Whether the Sub Court is justified in dismissing the suit and thereby permit the first respondent to inherit the estate of the deceased Ramasamy

who had disowned her by executing Ex. A1, dated 3-6-1959 on the ground of immorality and that even after that the first respondent has been

living on her own away from the said Ramasamy?

(2). Whether the finding of the courts below regarding the validity of the marriage on 13-12-1954 of the first respondent with the said Ramasamy

under Act 3 of 1872 is justified in view of the repeal of that Act by Act 53 of 1954?

The first question obviously it is not a question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

As far as the second question is concerned the case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the Special Marriage Act, 1872, was repealed with effect

from 10th November 1954 that the Special Marriage Act 1954 came into force on the 1st January 1955 and that the marriage of the first wife,

which was celebrated on 13-12-1954 in the interim period when there was no Special Marriage Act in force, is not valid. Such a proposition is so

absurd that it has necessarily to be rejected at the outset. Sub-S. (1) of S. 51 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 reads as follows-

Repeals and Savings: (1) The Special Marriage Act, 1872 (III of 1872)and any law corresponding to the Special Marriage Act, 1872, in force

in any Part B State immediately before the commencement of this Act are hereby repealed.

This shows that the repealing of the previous Act and the commencement of the new Act are to be contiguous, one immediately after the other.

Secondly, the Act has not provided; two different dates for the application of its different provisions. Sub-S. (3) of S. 1 of the Special Marriage

Act, 1954, provides as follows:

It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint.

Therefore, the repealing of the previous Act and the coming into force of the new Act are necessarily to take place on the same day. the

notification contemplated under sub-S.(3) of S. 1 of the Special Marriage Act 1954 is ''S.R.O. 1606 No. F/80 (66) 54-1, dated 7th December

1954, New Delhi. Gazette of India, Extraordinary, No. 216. dated 31-12-1954."" Therefore, the new Act comes into force on the 1st January

1955 and the old Act was repealed also with effect from the same date. There was no vacuum on 13-12-1954, the date of celebration of the

marriage and the Special Marriage Act 1872 was well in force. The learned counsel for the appellants was tempted to raise this curious contention

on the basis of what is found in page 61 of the book ''N.R. Raghavachari on Hindu Law, 8th Edn, 1987, where in the opening paragraph provided

by the editor it is said that the Act came into force on the 10th November 1954, and in sub-S. (3) of S. 1 of the Special Marriage Act 1954 after

the words. ''It shall come into force on such date'' the words ''1st January 1955'' are indicated within brackets. Therefore, for the convenience of

his client, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the repealing of the old Act took place on the 10th November, 1954 and the coming

into force of the new Act took place on 1st January 1955. The date ''10th November 1954'' provided by the Editor is obviously wrong. It is

unfortunate that in books of this standard, such wrong indication in respect of important date finds a place. With these observations the second

appeal is dismissed.