1. The only point for decision in this appeal is whether the succession to the estate of one Mangesh is governed by the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, Act II of 1929. If it is so governed, then respondent No. 1 is the heir; if it is not so governed, then the appellant (original plaintiff) and the remaining respondents are the heirs.
2. Mangesh died in 1911 and his estate passed to his widow Girijabai who died in 1933, that is to say after Act II had come into force.
3. The plaintiff's case is that Act II does not govern the succession because Mangesh died before it came into force, and at the time he filed this suit he had one authority in his favour, viz., Gavarammal v. Manikammal I.L.R. (1933) Mad. 718. Unfortunately for him that decision has since been overruled by a full bench of the Madras High Court in Lakshmi v. Anantharama (1937) Mad. 948 and the same view is now taken by all other High Courts before whom the question has come. (See Rajpali Kunwar v. Sarju Rai I.L.R. (1936) 58 AIL 1041. a full bench decision; Pokhan Dusadh v. Musammat Manoa I.L.R. (1936) Pat. 215. also a full bench decision, and Shrimati Shakuntla Devi v. Kaushalya Devi I.L.R. (1935) Lah. 356). The point has been discussed so fully in these casts that we do not really consider it necessary to add anything. The essence of the matter is, as pointed out in these cases, that the succession to the estate of a deceased Hindu is governed by the state of things which exists, not at his death, but at the death of his widow, assuming of course, that he leaves one. In other words, as stated in the Madras decision, for the purposes of succession a Hindu is deemed to have died not on the date on which he actually died, but on the date of the death of his widow. It follows, therefore, that to apply the Act when the widow has died after the passing of the Act is in no sense to make the Act retrospective.
4. We, therefore, confirm the decree of the trial Court and dismiss this appeal with costs in favour of respondent No. 1.