Skip to content


Apaji Chintaman Devdhar Vs. Gangabai Kom Daji Chintaman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1878)ILR2Bom632
AppellantApaji Chintaman Devdhar
RespondentGangabai Kom Daji Chintaman
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - small cause court--act xi of 1865--suit for maintenance--brother's widow. - 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 in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the..........be true. the subordinate judge decreed against the plaintiff, but his decision was reversed by the assistant judge, who relied upon timmappu v. parmehrimma 5 bom. h.c. rep. 130. however, in the case of savitribas v. luxumibai i.l.r. 2 bom. 573 decided on the 1st may 1878, which was a suit by a widow against her husband's paternal uncle, a full bench of this court held that the fact that the latter had no ancestral property, or property which had belonged to his deceased nephew, the husband of the plaintiff, constituted a full and sufficient defence to the suit. the reasoning by which the full bench arrived at its conclusion in that case is applicable to the present case, and it is unnecessary to repeat it here. the case relief upon by the assistant judge has been fully discussed in that.....
Judgment:

Michael Westropp, C.J.

1. The question whether a Court of Small Causes could have entertained this suit, referred to a Full Bench by the Division Court having been by the Full Bench decided in the negative, it now remains for the present Division Court--Mr. Justice Nanabhai Haridas, who was one of the referring Judges, being no longer on the Bench--to dispose of the suit on the merits. It is one by a widow against the brother of her late husband for a pecuniary allowance as maintenance and the expenses of a pilgrimage to Benares. The defendant alleged that he had not any ancestral property, and that he did not derive any property from his deceased brother, the husband of the plaintiff, and the Courts below have found this allegation to be true. The Subordinate Judge decreed against the plaintiff, but his decision was reversed by the Assistant Judge, who relied upon Timmappu v. Parmehrimma 5 Bom. H.C. Rep. 130. However, in the case of Savitribas v. Luxumibai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 573 decided on the 1st May 1878, which was a suit by a widow against her husband's paternal uncle, a Full Bench of this Court held that the fact that the latter had no ancestral property, or property which had belonged to his deceased nephew, the husband of the plaintiff, constituted a full and sufficient defence to the suit. The reasoning by which the Full Bench arrived at its conclusion in that case is applicable to the present case, and it is unnecessary to repeat it here. The case relief upon by the Assistant Judge has been fully discussed in that case. We reverse the decree of the Assistant Judge, and restore that of the Subordinate Judge, except that we direct the parties respectively to bear their own costs of the suit and both appeals.


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