The Act also supersedes the rule of succession contained in any Central or State enactment and any other law in force immediately before it came into operation by enacting that all other law shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far .
is it is inconsistent with any provisions contained in the Act. For instance, the provisions of Section 7 will apply in case of the undivided interest of a Hindu in the Aliyasantana, Kutumba or Kaveru and the rule of devolution given in Section 36(5) of the Madras Aliyasanta Act will be superseded in this respect. The Act is a codifying enactment. It does not merely crystallise the existing law upon the subject but departs from the law already in force. It supersedes prior law and lays down the whole of the law of succession in the form of a Code.
Therefore, appeal to any rule of law of succession previously applicable to Hindus is now permissible only in respect of matters, for which no provision is made in the Act. Matters affecting succession expressly saved from the operation of the Act, of course continue to be governed by the previous law statutory or otherwise. The Act does not affect the law relating to joint family and partition. It also does not abrogate any rule of customary law in the Punjab relating to restriction on alienation by a male proprietor. The right of reversionary to challenge any such alienation, made before the commencement of this Act does not cease to exist. The provisions of this Act, however, will not apply to— (a) The provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for (b) The prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings; (c) The provisions for the fixation of ceilings; The provisions for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings.
In Anudhar & others v. Chandrapati, the Court observed that, where the tenancy law is involved the succession would be governed by special mode of succession in tenancy law, not by the personal law i.e., Hindu law.