Aarohi Dhumale
Introduction:
Mary Roy v. The State of Kerala is a landmark judgment which paved the way for equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women in Kerala. This case was adjudicated by a bench of Chief Justice of India P.N. Bhagwati and Justice R.S. Pathak.
Background:
To understand this case, it is necessary to delve into history a bit. Travancore( now Trivandrum or Thiruvananthapuram) was a princely state before 1949. The Christians residing over there were governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092. According to this Act, if a widow or a mother became entitled to a property under Sections 16, 17, 21, and 22 but had only a life interest in it, a daughter is entitled to a share. However, her share will not equal to that of a son; instead she will receive only one-fourth of the value of the son’s share, or 5000/- Rupees, whichever is amount is lower. If she received or was promised Streedhanam (Streedhan) by the intestate or during the intestate’s lifetime, either by their spouse or, after the spouse’s death, by the spouse’s heirs, she will not be eligible for the one=fourth share or the 5000 Rupees.
In 1949, the Princely State of Travancore merged with Cochin to form the erstwhile State of Travancore-Cochin. With a view of having uniform legislations, certain Parliamentary Statutes, including the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Part States (Laws), Act, 1951 were passed by the Parliament. There was confusion as to whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, had been repealed as different opinions were given by judges. A Single Judge of the Madras High Court supported the repeal, while a Division Bench of the Madras High Court and the Travancore Cochin High Court disagreed. Consequently, petitioners have challenged Sections 24, 28, and 29 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, as unconstitutional under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
Facts:
Mary, the daughter of P.V. Issac had two brothers, John and George, and an elder sister, Molly. In 1959, Issac executed a deed of settlement in favor of his wife and gave his property as a life-estate to her. Mary, who was the youngest daughter, did not get Sthreedhanam at her marriage. After a few years, she left her alcoholic husband with her two children. She took residence at her deceased father’s cottage in Ooty. Her elder brother, George, got to know about this and started harassing her, even hired thugs to intimidate her. As she had no other place to go to, she kept residing there. He accused her of illegally occupying and claiming ownership over their deceased father’s property under Section 28 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092.
Mary opened a small school in Kottayam and then filed a suit in the lower court against her brother to get equal succession rights in her father’s property, which was rejected. She filed an appeal in the Kerala High Court, which granted her control over the property but not ownership. She wasn’t satisfied with this and felt she was being deprived of her fundamental rights. In order to seek Constitutional remedy, she filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 24, 28, and 29 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092.
Issues Raised:
- Did the provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, violate Mary’s right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
- Are the provisions of Part B of the State Laws Act of 1951 applicable in the former State of Travancore?
- In resolving disputes related to intestate succession, should the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092, or the Indian Succession Act, 1925, be applied?
- Was the Kerala High Court’s verdict legal and whether it should have been retrospective?
Judgment:
Issue 1:
Christian citizens of the Travancore Princely State were governed by the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092. Sections 16-19 of the Act were held to be violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution as they were discriminatory towards women. Thus, these sections were held to be void.
Issue 2:
On April 1, 1951, Part B of the State (Laws) Act, 1951, took effect, leading to the repeal of the Travancore Succession Act, 1092. Consequently, Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was enacted, and the intestate succession of Indian Christians living in the former State of Travancore came to be governed by the 1925 Act.
Issue 3:
Section 6 of the Part B State (Laws) Act, 1951, repealed any laws in force before April 1, 1951, that were similar to Acts or Ordinances extending to the Part B States, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Section 3 of the same Act applied the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to the Part B State of Travancore-Cochin, thereby repealing any corresponding laws, including the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092. Consequently, Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, took effect in the former State of Travancore, and Section 29(2) of the Act could not preserve the earlier legislation.
Issue 4
The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in Mary’s favor saying that the Kerala High Court’s verdict was appropriate and legal and that the decision in favor of Ms. Mary would have a retrospective operation. She received one -third of the land, as laid down in the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Analysis:
This case clarified yet again that no personal law is above the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Any such law would be declared void. With the Kerala High Court’s judgment being applied retroactively, succession will follow the rules of distribution under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Additionally, the Court observed that if a man dies intestate without children or a widow, his father inherits first; if the father is not alive, the mother, brothers, and sisters will share the property equally. Though this judgment provided equal rights in case of intestacy, it did not speak anything about other issues pertaining to succession.
Case Name: Mary Roy vs. The State of Kerala
Case Number: AIR 1011, 1986 SCR (1) 371
Bench: (Former) Chief Justice of India P.N. Bhagwati and Justice R.S. Pathak
Click here to access the order dated 24-02-1986