Skip to content


Sitaram Pandurang Deshmukh Vs. Ganpat Daulatrao Deshmukh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 381 of 1921
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom384; (1923)25BOMLR429; 73Ind.Cas.412
AppellantSitaram Pandurang Deshmukh
RespondentGanpat Daulatrao Deshmukh
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - venkatrao, the last owner of the vatan property, sold it to one fazal alli in 1865. after venkatrao's death in 1871, baburao, the illegitimate son of venkatrao, purchased the property from fazal alli and enjoyed the property till he died then he was succeeded by his brother dada who left a widow pyara, and a daugther, the present defendant. that is contrary to one's notions of the law on the subject which is very clearly laid down in lingappa goundan v......a mahomedan mistress. the pedigree appears at p. 1 of the print. venkatrao, the last owner of the vatan property, sold it to one fazal alli in 1865. after venkatrao's death in 1871, baburao, the illegitimate son of venkatrao, purchased the property from fazal alli and enjoyed the property till he died then he was succeeded by his brother dada who left a widow pyara, and a daugther, the present defendant. pyara died in 1906 when her daughter, the present defendant, took possession of the property. it was urged in the lower courts on behalf of the plaintiffs that babu-rao and dada were the heirs of venkatrao as his dasiputras, and hence they were in possession until their death, and that after the death of pyara, the widow of the survivor, the vatan would go to them. the appellants have.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiffs instituted this suit to recover possession of certain property on the ground that it was Desh-mukhi Vatan Service Inam land, and therefore could not devolve upon the defendant, who was a daughter of one Dada, the illegitimate son of Venkatrao by a Mahomedan mistress. The pedigree appears at p. 1 of the print. Venkatrao, the last owner of the Vatan property, sold it to one Fazal Alli in 1865. After Venkatrao's death in 1871, Baburao, the illegitimate son of Venkatrao, purchased the property from Fazal Alli and enjoyed the property till he died Then he was succeeded by his brother Dada who left a widow Pyara, and a daugther, the present defendant. Pyara died in 1906 when her daughter, the present defendant, took possession of the property. It was urged in the lower Courts on behalf of the plaintiffs that Babu-rao and Dada were the heirs of Venkatrao as his dasiputras, and hence they were in possession until their death, and that after the death of Pyara, the widow of the survivor, the Vatan would go to them. The appellants have not been able to place before us any case in which it has been laid down that an illegitimate offspring of a Hindu by a Mahomedan mistress would be a Hindu. That is contrary to one's notions of the law on the subject which is very clearly laid down in Lingappa Goundan v. Esudasan I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 13 it being held that a man cannot be regarded as a Hindu by birth unless both his parents are Hindus.

2. The result must be that Venkatrao left no Hindu heir to succeed him, and the illegitimate sons holding adversely to Venkatrao's heirs became entitled Co. the property as against them. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.


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