Skip to content


Gulappa Doningappa Vs. Tayawa Kempanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 739 of 1905
Judge
Reported in(1907)9BOMLR834
AppellantGulappa Doningappa
RespondentTayawa Kempanna
Excerpt:
hindu law-mitakshara, bombay school- stridhan inherited by daughter from her father-devolution on her daughter.;in the bombay presidency, under the mitakshara, a daughter takes an absolute interest in the property inherited by her from her father and such stridhan devolves on her daughter in preference to her son.;sheo shankarlal v. debi sahai (1903) l.r. 30 i.a. 202 and lal sheo per(sic)tab bahadur singh v. allahabad bank (1903) l.r. 30 i.a. 209, distinguished. - chandavarkar, j.1. on the authority of the decisions of the judicial committee of the privy council in sheo shankarlal v. debi sahai and lal sheo pertab bahadur singh v. allahabad bank (1903) l.r. 30 indap 209 it is contended that property inherited by a daughter from her father under the mitakshara law is not such stridhan,as on her death devolves on her daughter but that it must go to her sons as if she were a male. those decisions, however, turn upon the law of the benares school and the judicial committee expressly confine their ruling to it. on this side of india a different law has prevailed as may be seen from a series of decisions of this court. see navalram atmaram v. hand kishor shiv narayan (1865) i.b.h. c. 209; tuljaram morarji v. mathuradas ilr (1881) 5 bom. 662; bhagirthibai.....
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. On the authority of the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Shankarlal v. Debi Sahai and Lal Sheo Pertab Bahadur Singh v. Allahabad Bank (1903) L.R. 30 IndAp 209 it is contended that property inherited by a daughter from her father under the Mitakshara law is not such stridhan,as on her death devolves on her daughter but that it must go to her sons as if she were a male. Those decisions, however, turn upon the law of the Benares School and the Judicial Committee expressly confine their ruling to it. On this side of India a different law has prevailed as may be seen from a series of decisions of this Court. See Navalram Atmaram v. Hand Kishor Shiv Narayan (1865) I.B.H. C. 209; Tuljaram Morarji v. Mathuradas ILR (1881) 5 Bom. 662; Bhagirthibai v. Kahnujirav ILR (1886) 11 Bom. 285; Jankibai v. Sundra ILR (1899) 14 Bom. 612; Gandhi Maganlal v. Bai Jadav ILR (1898) 24 Bom. 192 : 1 Bom. L.R. 574; Vijiardngam v. Lakshuman (1871) 8 B.H.C. 244; and Manilal Rewddat v. Bai Rewa ILR (1905) 30 Bom 229. On the principle of stare decisis we must adhere to the law as it has been expounded by this Court. (See Bhau v. Raghundth ILR (1905) 30 Bom. 229 : 7 Bom. L.R. 936. We confirm the decree with costs.


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