The Calcutta Weekly Notes August 21 1950

In Nandakumari v. Bulkan (supra) it was argued that the wording of the first proviso to section 3 (1) required that the predeceased son of the intestate should have had a son whether that son survived him or not before the widow of such a predeceased son could claim under the proviso. [...] The reason given is that he is not a person against whom the decree was obtained or the suit instituted 'upon the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent' as contemplated by the section but upon the ground that his tenancy had ipso facto determined under section 12 (3) of the old Act. [...] The first proviso to section 3 (I) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 runs provided the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in the like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son and shall inherit in the manner as a son's son if there is a son or a son's son of such predeceased son'. [...] ' in the first clause to the first proviso of section 3 (r) mean that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit with all the rights of a son of the prdeceased son subject to sub-section (3) of section 3 provided the said predeceased son dies leaving him surviving no Son. [...] Carrying the argment further cannot I say from the langages of the second clause to the first prviso of section 3 (r) that if there be any son or son's son of such predeceased son then the widow of the predeceased son would inherit in the like manner as a son's son of such predeceased son i.e.