Skip to content


Balkrishna Bhimaji Mokashi Vs. Ramkrishna Gangadhar Dixit Inamdar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 893 of 1918
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR1442; 136Ind.Cas.176
AppellantBalkrishna Bhimaji Mokashi
RespondentRamkrishna Gangadhar Dixit Inamdar
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
hindu law - mitakshara-succession-bandhus-priority between male and female bandhua.;under the mitakshara, the mother's sister's son is entitled to succeed in priority to brother's daughter.;for purposes of succession the female bandhus are excluded by the nine classes of bandhua mentioned in the mitakshara. - - but it is just as well that in order that there should be no dispute in the future we should hold him entitled to that half share of appa subject to his having to pay off the mortgages together with the costs and further charges if any before he gets possession......judge has not cited any authority for that opinion which, if correct, would mean this, that the female bandhus are placed in a position of equality with male bandhus. now the nine bandhus specially mentioned in the mitakshara are male bandhus, and although other male bandhus have been held by various decisions entitled to rank with those band us, there is not a word said in any of those decisions about female bandhus being placed in equality with the male banshee. on the other hand there is a direct decision of the madras high court- rajah venkata karasimha appa rao bahadur v. rajah surenani venkata purushothama jagannadha gopala row bahadurji i.l.r. (1908) mad. 321-that under the mitakshara a male bandhu is entitled to preference over a female bandhu even though the latter is nearer.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property and his claim was resisted by the defendants 3 and 4 who denied that the plaintiff' was the owner. In the trial Court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the plaintiff's claim was allowed and he was held entitled to recover possession of the plaint property with the exception of what was mortgaged to the defendants 3 and 4. The learned Judge decided in the plaintiff's favour on the ground that defendant No. 1, through whom the plaintiff claims, was a nearer heir to Raghu than the vendors of defendants 3 and 4 who were the sons of Raghu's mother's sister. The learned Judge says: 'It is now settled law that the suggestion in West and Buhler, p. 491, as to the postponement of all other banshee to the nine specially mentioned in the Mitakshara is not correct and that the only principle governing the order of succession among bandits is that of propinquity.' Unfortunately the learned Judge has not cited any authority for that opinion which, if correct, would mean this, that the female bandhus are placed in a position of equality with male bandhus. Now the nine bandhus specially mentioned in the Mitakshara are male bandhus, and although other male bandhus have been held by various decisions entitled to rank with those band us, there is not a word said in any of those decisions about female bandhus being placed in equality with the male banshee. On the other hand there is a direct decision of the Madras High Court- Rajah Venkata Karasimha Appa Rao Bahadur v. Rajah Surenani Venkata Purushothama Jagannadha Gopala Row Bahadurji I.L.R. (1908) Mad. 321-that under the Mitakshara a male bandhu is entitled to preference over a female bandhu even though the latter is nearer in degree. In the absence of any authority to the contrary of the opinion expressed by West and Buhler we are of opinion that female bandhus are excluded by the nine classes of bandhus mentioned in the Mitakshara. Mr. Mulla also in his work on Hindu Law cannot point to any authority to support the learned Judge's conclusion. We may take it then as settled law, as fur as the present case is concerned, that female ban has are still excluded from being treated on an equality with male bandhus.

2. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the plaintiff can only be entitled to the half share ot Appa in the plaint property subject to the mortgage of the defendants 3 and 4.

3. It is true that he sues for possession although the properties are in the possession of the mortgagees until the mortgages are paid off. But it is just as well that in order that there should be no dispute in the future we should hold him entitled to that half share of Appa subject to his having to pay off the mortgages together with the costs and further charges if any before he gets possession.

4. Plaintiff to pay costs throughout.

5. The cross-objections are dismissed with costs.


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