Travancore Christian Succession Act 1916

 [1] Mrs. Mary Roy Etc. Etc vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 24 February, 1986 [1986 AIR 1011, 1986 SCR (1) 371]

Prior to July 1949 the State of Travancore was a Prince B State and the law in force in the territories of that state in regard to intestate succession to the property of members of the Christian community residing there, was the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1916.

There are separate laws for different segments of the Christian community residing in India. This discriminates the Christians on the basis of their segments and their gender. Women are not having certain rights in many Christian segments.

The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of Travancore Christian Succession Act provided that "the usages of the various sections of the Christian community do not agree in all respects. Separate legislation for the various sections of Christians is neither desirable nor practicable and is likely to lead to much litigation and trouble. It is therefore thought necessary to enact a common law for all the various sections of Indian Christians."

Rules given under Section 16, 17, 21 and 22 of Travancore Christian Succession Act are discriminatory against women. As per these rules, so far as succession to the immovable property of the intestate is concerned, a widow or mother becoming entitled under secs. 16, 17, 21 and 22 shall have only life interest terminable at death or on remarriage and that a daughter shall not be entitled to succeed to the property of the intestate in the same share as the son.

In princely state of Travancore which is now part of State of Kerala, different Christian communities were residing among which Roman Catholic Christian, Protestant Christian and Syrian Christian communities were in majority. Family matters of these different Christian communities were governed by the different laws enacted during the British Rule in India. These colonial provisions are still governing different Christian communities through different provisions specifically mentioning their sections in the statute.

Mary Roy is the mother of famous leftist writer Arundhati Roy.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Legal interpretations from Ayodhya Verdict Part 8

Image
  =================== Jay Shree Ram! These are some notes from Ayodhya Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions: Read more Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Principle as to personality of institutions.- Apart from natural persons and corporations, which are recognised by English law, the position under Hindu law is that if an endowments is made for a religious or charitable institution, without the instrumentality of a trust, and the object of the endowment is one which is recognised as pious, being either religious or charitable under the accepted notions of Hindu law, the institution will be treated as a juristic person capable of holding property. – Justice B K Mukhergea Upon making an endowment, the donor relinquishes all claims to the endowed property. The property now vests in the pious purpose at the heart of the endowment which is recognised as a legal person. The idol forms the material manifestation of th...
Read more

Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA

  UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs M/s. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA: The aforesaid proposition has also been confirmed by the House of Lords in R v. H, [2003] 1 ALL ER 497. 17.19 In Kennedy v Mendoza¬Martinez, 372 US 144 (1963), the Supreme Court of the United States, while concerned with the constitutionality of legislation that imposed forfeiture of citizenship on those who had left or remained outside the United States during wartime to evade military service, had laid down the following relevant factors to classify forfeiture law: (a) Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint; (b) Whether it has been historically regarded as a punishment; (c) Whether it is only applicable where there has been a finding of scienter (that is, a finding that an act has been done knowingly and intentionally); (d) Whether its operation promotes the traditional retributive and deterrent aims of punishment; (e) Whether the behaviour t...
Read more

Legal Interpretation from Ayodhya Verdict Part 9

Image
  =================== Jay Shree Ram! These are some notes from Ayodhya Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions: Read more Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Where there exists an express deed of dedication, the legal personality vests in the pious purpose of the founder. The idol is the material embodiment of the pious purpose and is the site of jural relations. There are instances of the submergence or even destruction of the idol inspite of which it has been held that the legal personality continues to subsist. Even if a testator were to make a dedication to a religious purpose but the idol did not exist at the time the dedication was made or the manifestation of the divine was not in the form of the idol, but in the form of some other object of religious significance, the legal personality would continue to vest in the pious purpose of the dedication itself. A Swayambhu deity is a manifestation of God tha...
Read more