Read the following case and fill the table given underneath it accordingly:

Mary Roy, a widow, was harassed, insulted, and humiliated by her brothers because they wanted her to

evacuate their father’s property. Her brothers had hired some men who were goons who threatened her

to evacuate the place or else they would use brute and physical force against her. Mary Roy blatantly

refused to do as she did not have any other place to go to reside in. But her brothers were persistent and

kept on insisting for her to evacuate the place as they claimed that the property belonged to them under

the Travancore Succession Act of 1916 and that she was illegally residing and claiming the property as

hers. Mary Roy felt that her constitutional right to equality was being violated and hence she decided to

take this matter to the court so as to restore her right. The reason for this dispute was that Travancore

was governed by the Travancore Succession Act of 1916. This law act implied that there was no law

which provided succession to the Christians women residing in that area before 1916. Mary Roy first filed

a case against her brother George Isaac in order to get equal rights in succession, but her request was

dismissed by the lower court. She then filed an application in the Kerala high court against the judgment

given to her in the lower court. Her application to the Kerala high court was ruled in her favor. After she

started residing in the cottage which belonged to her father her brothers started harassing her again.

Mary Roy decided to continue her fight against her brothers and decided to move her case to the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. She challenged the provision of the Travancore succession law of 1916.

She filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India invoking constitutional remedies under Article 32 of

the Indian constitution. The court upheld that the widowed mother would receive 1/3

rd of the property

of her husband and 1/3

rd

shall be taken the daughter and the remaining 1/3

rd would go to the brother.

There was no distinction or discrimination to me made between the sons and the daughters in the

matters of intestate succession.Based on the above case, fill the table as how each level of judicial system addressed her appeal:


​