Skip to content


Bhiku Krishna Badhade Vs. Keshav Ramji Badhade - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 10 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1924Bom360; (1924)26BOMLR235
AppellantBhiku Krishna Badhade
RespondentKeshav Ramji Badhade
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....succeed to the estate of her daughter by her former husband who dies after her remarriage.;basappa v. rayava (1904) i.l.r. 29 nom. 91, s.c. 6 bom. l.r. 779, f.b.followed. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported..........she had remarried she could equally succeed to the estate of her daughter. considering that in basappa v.rayava i.l.r. (1904) 29 bom. 91, 6 bom. l.r. 779 f. b the learned chief justice was of opinion that they were not entitled to disregard a rule affecting rights of property established as far back as 1868 by the decision of a full bench of the calcutta high court in akora suth v. boreani (1868) 2 ben. l.r. 199, a.j.c. and considering that he declined to give expression to his own opinion on the point, it certainly would be impossible for us sitting as a division bench to consider that that decision was wrong. nor would there be any ground for our referning the question to another full bench. the appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.shah, j.2. i concur in the order.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. We think the learned District Judge was right in following the Full Bench decision in Basappa v. Rayava I.L.R. (1904) 29 Bom. 91, 6 Bom. L.R. 779. In that case it was held that a widow remarrying could succeed to the estate of her son by her former husband who died after her remarriage. We do not think that case can be distinguished from the present case merely because the widow succeeded to the estate of her daughter, and not to the estate of her son. It was suggested that there might be some difference if the son had taken by survivorship, which could not be the case with the daughter, as the daughter must necessarily take by inheritance. The fact remains, whether the estate has vested in a son or a daughter, that the mother succeeds to both of them as heir, and consequently, if she could succeed to the estate of her son. after she had remarried she could equally succeed to the estate of her daughter. Considering that in Basappa v.Rayava I.L.R. (1904) 29 Bom. 91, 6 Bom. L.R. 779 F. B the learned Chief Justice was of opinion that they were not entitled to disregard a rule affecting rights of property established as far back as 1868 by the decision of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Akora Suth v. Boreani (1868) 2 Ben. L.R. 199, A.J.C. and considering that he declined to give expression to his own opinion on the point, it certainly would be impossible for us sitting as a Division Bench to consider that that decision was wrong. Nor would there be any ground for our referning the question to another Full Bench. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.

Shah, J.

2. I concur in the order proposed on the ground that we are bound by the decision in Basappa v. Rayava I.L.R. (1904) 29 Bom. 91, 6 Bom. L.R. 779


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //