Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 110

8.6. Travancore case of 1957.-

The erstwhile Travancore Cochin High Court, however, had held1 that the Travancore Regulation of 1092 (i) was saved by section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and (ii) was not repealed by the Part B States Laws Act, 1950, as it could not be considered a law "corresponding" to the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Travancore Cochin High Court has construed the expression "save as provided in or any other law for the time being in force" in section 29(2), as including an existing State law, i.e., the Travancore Christian Succession Regulation, 1092.

It found support for this view in two decisions2 which had held that section 29(2) saved the customary law of intestate succession among certain communities. It also observed that the effect of section 29(2) of the Indian Succession Act on the Travancore Regulation was to adopt that Regulation by 'reference' and to make it part of the 1925 Act itself. In this view, it could not be considered a "corresponding law" repealed by section 6 of the Part B States Laws Act, 1950.

1. Kurien Angusty v. Devassey Aley, AIR 1957 Tray-Co 1.

2. (a) Nabujan v. Paushiomoni, 54 CWN 2 DR 14.

(b) Prem Chand v. Lilawati, AIR 1950 HP 17.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
Powered and driven by Neosys Inc