Skip to content


Gangadhar Narayan Pandit Vs. Ibrahim Bava Dingankar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 875 of 1918
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom265; (1923)25BOMLR197
AppellantGangadhar Narayan Pandit
Respondentibrahim Bava Dingankar
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
hindu law - inheritance-father-separated sons and grandsons succeed equally. ;on the death of a hindu his separated sons and grandsons succeed per stirpes to his estate. ;marudayi v. doraisami karambian (1907) i.l.r. 30 mad. 348, followed. - - moreover, speaking for myself, i should not be inclined to differ from a decision on a question such as the present one, by a division bench of another high court, unless it could be established in argument before me that there were very good grounds for thinking that we were justified in coming to a different conclusion......follows from the exposition given by vijnaneswar (mit. 1. 1. 3) of the rights of sons and grandsons in the estate of the grand-father.2. with respect i agree. moreover, speaking for myself, i should not be inclined to differ from a decision on a question such as the present one, by a division bench of another high court, unless it could be established in argument before me that there were very good grounds for thinking that we were justified in coming to a different conclusion. in this case the applicant's pleader has not been able to put before us any reasons why we should differ from the decision of the madras high court except that it would be against the interest of his client.3. there is a further reason why we should follow it, as this case is cited in the 8th edition on.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether Gangadhar as the surviving son of Naro succeeded to Naro's property to the exclusion of the sons of his deceased brothers. Naro and his four sons had become separated. Gangadhar contended that after the death of Naro he was entitled to one-fifth share in the Khoti which had come to Naro on the partition. The question was considered in Marudayi v. Boraiaami Karambian I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 348. It was there held that the right of divided sons, grand-sons and great-grand-sons of the last male owner to succeed to his divided property, is the same as in the case of undivided family property. Their Lordships said (p. 351):

It must however be conceded that to allow a rule of succession per stirpes in a separated family is to admit an exception to the rule of Hindu Law by which the inheritance devolves on the nearest sapinda; but the exception is one which in our opinion necessarily follows from the exposition given by Vijnaneswar (Mit. 1. 1. 3) of the rights of sons and grandsons in the estate of the grand-father.

2. With respect I agree. Moreover, speaking for myself, I should not be inclined to differ from a decision on a question such as the present one, by a Division Bench of another High Court, unless it could be established in argument before me that there were very good grounds for thinking that we were justified in coming to a different conclusion. In this case the applicant's pleader has not been able to put before us any reasons why we should differ from the decision of the Madras High Court except that it would be against the interest of his client.

3. There is a further reason why we should follow it, as this case is cited in the 8th Edition on Mayne's Hindu Law, para 540, at page 755, and no exception whatever has been taken to the law as laid down therein. We, therefore, follow that decision and dismiss the appeal. As the respondent has not appeared, there will be no costs.


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