Skip to content


Bhiku Krishna Badhade Vs. Keshan Ramji Badhade - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in80Ind.Cas.512
AppellantBhiku Krishna Badhade
RespondentKeshan Ramji Badhade
Excerpt:
hindu law - widow--remarriage--succession to daughter by former husband. - .....c.j.1. we think the learned district judge was right in following the full bench decision in basappa v. rayava 29 b. 91 : 6 bom. l.r. 779 . in that case it was held that a widow re-marrying could succeed to the estate of her son by her former husband who died after her remarriage. we do not think that case can be distinguished from the present case merely because the widow succeeded to the estate of her daughter, and not to the estate of her son. it was suggested that there might be some difference if the son had taken by survivorship, which could not be the case with the daughter, as the daughter must necessarily take by inheritance. the fact remains, whether the estate has vested in a son or a daughter, that the mother succeeds to both of them as heir, and consequently, if she.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, C.J.

1. We think the learned District Judge was right in following the Full Bench decision in Basappa v. Rayava 29 B. 91 : 6 Bom. L.R. 779 . In that case it was held that a widow re-marrying could succeed to the estate of her son by her former husband who died after her remarriage. We do not think that case can be distinguished from the present case merely because the widow succeeded to the estate of her daughter, and not to the estate of her son. It was suggested that there might be some difference if the son had taken by survivorship, which could not be the case with the daughter, as the daughter must necessarily take by inheritance. The fact remains, whether the estate has vested in a son or a daughter, that the mother succeeds to both of them as heir, and consequently, if she could succeed to the estate of her son, after she had re-married, she could equally succeed to the estate of her daughter. Considering that in Basappa v. Rayava 29 B. 91 : Bom. L.R. 779 the learned Chief Justice was of opinion that they were not entitled to disregard a rule affecting rights of property established as far back as 1868 by the decision of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Akora Suth v. Boreani 2 B.L.R. 199 : 11 W.R. 82 and considering that he declined to give expression to his own opinion on the point, it certainly would be impossible for us sitting as a Division Bench to consider that that decision was wrong. Nor would there be any ground for our referring the question to another Full Bench. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.

Shah, J.

2. I concur in the order proposed on the ground that we are bound by the decision in Basappa v. Rayava 29 B. 91 : 6 Bom. L.R. 779 .


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