Parinam Rama Rao Pantulu And Another v. Parinam Kristnamma

Venkatasubba Rao, J

[1] The short question in this appeal is this: Has Section 2 of Act XIII of 1923 the effect of rescinding Balamba v. Krishnayya (1913) I.L.R 37 M. 483 : 25 M.L.J. 65 (F.B.). 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.