The Repealing and Amending Act, 2015 does not
disclose any intention on the part of the Parliament to take
away the status of a co-parcener conferred on a daughter
giving equal rights with the son in the co-parcenary property.
Similarly, no such intention can be gathered with regard to
restoration of Section 23 and 24 of the Principal Act which
were repealed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005. On the contrary, by virtue of the Repealing and
Amending Act, 2015, the amendments made to Hindu
Succession Act in the year 2005, became part of the Act and
the same is given retrospective effect from the day the
Principal Act came into force in the year 1956, as if the said
amended provision was in operation at that time.
28. The main object of a Repealing and Amending Act
is only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead
matter from the statute book in order to lighten the burden
of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove
confusion from the public mind. In other words, the
Repealing and Amending Act is enacted not to bring in any
change in law, but to remove enactments which have become
unnecessary. Thus, the Repealing and Amending Act, 2015
only expurgates the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 (Act No.39/2005) along with similar Acts, which had
served the purpose.
29. The repeal of an amending Act, therefore, has no
repercussion on the parent Act which together with the
amendments remains unaffected. The general object of a
repealing and amending Act is stated in Halsbury's Laws of
England, 2nd Edition, Vol. 31, at p.563, thus:
“A statute Law Revision Act does not alter the
law, but simply strikes out certain enactments
which have become unnecessary. It invariably
contains elaborate provisos.”
30. In KHUDA BUX V. MANAGER, CALEDONIAN
PRESS, A.I.R. 1954 CAL. 484 CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J., 29
neatly brings out the purpose and scope of such Acts. The
learned Chief Justice says at p.486 as under : -
Such Acts have no Legislative effect, but are
designed for editorial revision, being intended
only to excise dead matter from the statute book
and to reduce its volume. Mostly, they expurgate
amending Acts, because having imparted the
amendments to the main Acts, those Acts have
served their purpose and have no further reason
for their existence. At times, inconsistencies are
also removed by repealing and amending Acts.
The only object of such Acts, which in England
are called Statute Law Revision Acts, is
legislative spring-cleaning and they are not
intended to make any change in the law. Even so,
they are guarded by saving clauses drawn with
elaborate care,. . .”.
31. This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court
in the case of JETHANAND BETAB vs THE STATE OF
DELHI [AIR 1960 SC 89]. 30
32. The Repealing and Amending Act, 2015 which
repeals the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment) Act, 2005 in
whole, therefore, does not wipe out the amendment to
Section 6 from the Hindu Succession Act. The existence of
the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 since became
superfluous and did not serve any purpose and might lead
to confusion, the Parliament in its wisdom thought of
repealing the said Amendment Act. It is only a case of
legislative spring-cleaning, and not intended to make any
change in law.
33. The amended Section 6 has already been
substituted in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as if it was in
the enactment from its inception. When the amending
provision takes the place of the earlier provision, the object
of the Amendment Act is fulfilled and thereafter the
Amendment Act serves no purpose. Therefore, such an
Amendment Act requires to be repealed and that is what has
been precisely done by Act No.17/2015. Accordingly, Point
No.1 is answered in the negative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED: 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
PRESENT:
MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.58/2014
SMT.LOKAMANI
Vs
SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
Print Page
disclose any intention on the part of the Parliament to take
away the status of a co-parcener conferred on a daughter
giving equal rights with the son in the co-parcenary property.
Similarly, no such intention can be gathered with regard to
restoration of Section 23 and 24 of the Principal Act which
were repealed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005. On the contrary, by virtue of the Repealing and
Amending Act, 2015, the amendments made to Hindu
Succession Act in the year 2005, became part of the Act and
the same is given retrospective effect from the day the
Principal Act came into force in the year 1956, as if the said
amended provision was in operation at that time.
28. The main object of a Repealing and Amending Act
is only to strike out the unnecessary Acts and excise dead
matter from the statute book in order to lighten the burden
of ever increasing spate of legislation and to remove
confusion from the public mind. In other words, the
Repealing and Amending Act is enacted not to bring in any
change in law, but to remove enactments which have become
unnecessary. Thus, the Repealing and Amending Act, 2015
only expurgates the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 (Act No.39/2005) along with similar Acts, which had
served the purpose.
29. The repeal of an amending Act, therefore, has no
repercussion on the parent Act which together with the
amendments remains unaffected. The general object of a
repealing and amending Act is stated in Halsbury's Laws of
England, 2nd Edition, Vol. 31, at p.563, thus:
“A statute Law Revision Act does not alter the
law, but simply strikes out certain enactments
which have become unnecessary. It invariably
contains elaborate provisos.”
30. In KHUDA BUX V. MANAGER, CALEDONIAN
PRESS, A.I.R. 1954 CAL. 484 CHAKRAVARTTI, C.J., 29
neatly brings out the purpose and scope of such Acts. The
learned Chief Justice says at p.486 as under : -
Such Acts have no Legislative effect, but are
designed for editorial revision, being intended
only to excise dead matter from the statute book
and to reduce its volume. Mostly, they expurgate
amending Acts, because having imparted the
amendments to the main Acts, those Acts have
served their purpose and have no further reason
for their existence. At times, inconsistencies are
also removed by repealing and amending Acts.
The only object of such Acts, which in England
are called Statute Law Revision Acts, is
legislative spring-cleaning and they are not
intended to make any change in the law. Even so,
they are guarded by saving clauses drawn with
elaborate care,. . .”.
31. This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court
in the case of JETHANAND BETAB vs THE STATE OF
DELHI [AIR 1960 SC 89]. 30
32. The Repealing and Amending Act, 2015 which
repeals the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment) Act, 2005 in
whole, therefore, does not wipe out the amendment to
Section 6 from the Hindu Succession Act. The existence of
the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 since became
superfluous and did not serve any purpose and might lead
to confusion, the Parliament in its wisdom thought of
repealing the said Amendment Act. It is only a case of
legislative spring-cleaning, and not intended to make any
change in law.
33. The amended Section 6 has already been
substituted in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as if it was in
the enactment from its inception. When the amending
provision takes the place of the earlier provision, the object
of the Amendment Act is fulfilled and thereafter the
Amendment Act serves no purpose. Therefore, such an
Amendment Act requires to be repealed and that is what has
been precisely done by Act No.17/2015. Accordingly, Point
No.1 is answered in the negative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED: 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
PRESENT:
MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.58/2014
SMT.LOKAMANI
Vs
SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
