High CourtsDivision Bench(1929) 07 MAD CK 0004

Parinam Rama Rao Pantulu and Another vs Parinam Kristnamma

Madras High Court · Decided on 24 July 1929 · Citation: AIR 1929 Mad 825 : (1929) ILR (Mad) 936 : 121 Ind. Cas. 496 : (1929) 30 LW 500 : (1929) 57 MLJ 793

HON’BLE JUDGES
Venkatasubba Rao, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 194 words

Venkatasubba Rao, J.—The short question in this appeal is this: Has Section 2 of Act XIII of 1923 the effect of rescinding Pokkunuri

Balamba Vs. Kakaraparti Krishnayya and Others, . The District Judge is of course wrong in saying that it was not open to the legislature to give

effect to a view different from that taken in that decision. But the question is, what is the true construction of Section 2? It declares that the

provisions of Section 6 of the Married Women''s Property Act of 1874 shall apply in the case of any policy effected by any Hindu in Madras after

the 31st December, 1913 (the Full Bench decision having been given on the 19th December). It does not further enact that, they shall not apply to

policies effected before that date. What then about such policies? They are clearly governed by the old Act. The present policy was effected in

1894 and governed as it is by the earlier Act, the decision of the Full Bench applies. We therefore confirm the judgment of the Lower Court and

dismiss the appeal with costs.

2.

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed without costs.