Skip to content


Dhondi Mahipaty Vs. Radhabai Shabaji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 426 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR569
AppellantDhondi Mahipaty
RespondentRadhabai Shabaji
Excerpt:
hindu law-succession-paternal grand mother inheriting to her grandson- limited estate. ;under hindu law, a paternal grand-mother inheriting to her grand-bon takes only a limited estate for life.;all women who belong to a family by marriage, not by birth, take a limited interest in the property which they inherit from any male member of that family. - .....divided member of the family of kedari and mahipati, originally joint. when gaba died bhiki as his grand-mother and heir inherited his property with a limited estate, and on the death of bhiki the appellant, being the nearest male gotraja sapinda of gaba, and therefore his reversionary heir, became entitled to the property in preference to the plaintiffs, the paternal aunts of gaba : see vrijbhukandas v. bai parvati ilr (1907) 32 bom. 26 and ganesh v. waghu ilr (1903) 27 bom. 610. we have been asked by mr. shingne, the learned pleader for the respondents, to hold that bhiki took an absolute estate and that, therefore, on her death, the property in question which she had inherited from gaba became her stridhan, and as such descended to the plaintiffs, her daughters. according to the.....
Judgment:

N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt. J.

1. The lower Courts have found that Gaba was a divided member of the family of Kedari and Mahipati, originally joint. When Gaba died Bhiki as his grand-mother and heir inherited his property with a limited estate, and on the death of Bhiki the appellant, being the nearest male gotraja sapinda of Gaba, and therefore his reversionary heir, became entitled to the property in preference to the plaintiffs, the paternal aunts of Gaba : see Vrijbhukandas v. Bai Parvati ILR (1907) 32 Bom. 26 and Ganesh v. Waghu ILR (1903) 27 Bom. 610. We have been asked by Mr. Shingne, the learned pleader for the respondents, to hold that Bhiki took an absolute estate and that, therefore, on her death, the property in question which she had inherited from Gaba became her stridhan, and as such descended to the plaintiffs, her daughters. According to the settled law of this Court, the widow and the mother of a propositus, succeeding as heirs, take each but a limited estate for life. It is true that there is no decision of the Court which directly settles the question of the character of the estate taken by a paternal grand-mother inheriting the property of her grand-son. But the reason of the rule of law, which in this Presidency applies to a widow and a mother, applies equally to the grand-mother and all other females, who come into the family of the propositus by marriage. The rule is that all women, who belong to a family by marriage, not by birth, take a limited estate in the property which they inherit from any male member of that family. It is too late in the day to ask us to upset the rule and we must now apply the principle stare decisis. The decree must, therefore, be reversed and the plaintiffs' suit dismissed with costs of this appeal upon the respondents. There will be no order as to costs in the two Courts below.


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