Skip to content


Ambaidas Parag Vs. Jijibhai Raiji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 799 of 1910
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR261
AppellantAmbaidas Parag
RespondentJijibhai Raiji
Excerpt:
hindu law-vyavahara mayukha-succession-collateral line-widow of nearer collateral excluded by remoter collateral in the same line.;under the vyavahara mayukha, the widow of a nearer collateral is, for the purposes of succession, postponed to a remoter male collateral in the same collateral line. - 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..........ganesh v. sitabai raghunath shivram : (1911)13bomlr552 applying the principle enunciated in rachava v. kalingapa ilr (1892) 16 bom. 716. it is, however, contended that the law is different where the parties belong to that part of the country where the law of the mayukha prevails. this contention is met by the pleader for the respondents by reference to a decision of an appellate bench of this court in bai mahalaxmi v. bai suraj see p. 263, infra (note.) in which the principle stated in rachava v. kalingapa ilr (1892) 16 bom. 716 was applied as between litigants from gujarat governed by the law of the mayukha. we are now asked to disregard this decision and to apply a rigid and logical rule of propinquity which has admittedly never been given effect to and in the statement of which.....
Judgment:

Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.

1. The only question argued in this appeal is whether the fifth male descendant in a particular line collateral to that of the propositus is to be preferred to the widow of one in the third degree in the same collateral line.

2. It is conceded that the question has been decided in the affirmative in regard to Hindus in this Presidency governed by the law of the Mitakshara : see Kashibai Ganesh v. Sitabai Raghunath Shivram : (1911)13BOMLR552 applying the principle enunciated in Rachava v. Kalingapa ILR (1892) 16 Bom. 716. It is, however, contended that the law is different where the parties belong to that part of the country where the law of the Mayukha prevails. This contention is met by the pleader for the respondents by reference to a decision of an appellate Bench of this Court in Bai Mahalaxmi v. Bai Suraj see p. 263, infra (note.) in which the principle stated in Rachava v. Kalingapa ILR (1892) 16 Bom. 716 was applied as between litigants from Gujarat governed by the law of the Mayukha. We are now asked to disregard this decision and to apply a rigid and logical rule of propinquity which has admittedly never been given effect to and in the statement of which no reference can be found to the widows of got raja sapindas. We think we are bound by the decision in Bai Mahalaxmi v. Bai Suraj see p. 263, infra (note.) and we see no reason to disagree with it.

3. We dismiss the appeal with costs.

4. We set aside the decree that the plaintiffs should pay Rs. 1541-1-0 to defendant No. 3 for getting possession. In other respects we affirm the decree for the plaintiffs with costs throughout.


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