Skip to content


Baldeo Das Vs. Sham Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All77
AppellantBaldeo Das
RespondentSham Lal
Excerpt:
hindu law - undivided hindu family--ancestral immoveable property--right of father and son. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the..........9 and 10, mitakshara, which, by marking the extent of the son's power of interference in the father's disposition of the property, shows that the power of disposition within certain limits is centred in the father. the son's enjoyment of the property is subject to the dispositions lawfully made by the father, and, if dissatisfied, the son's remedy will lie in any right ho may possess to enforce partition of the estate.3. in this case there has been no illegal disposition of the property on the part of the father. it appears that the defendant objects to live with his mother-in-law, and insists on occupying part of a house which used to he rented, and which his father desires to dispose of in the way he considers most advisable.4. i would decree the appeal and decree the claim, but,.....
Judgment:

Oldfield, J.

1. The decree of the Court of First Instance should, in my opinion, be restored.

2. A son, no doubt, takes by birth a vested interest in immoveable ancestral property, and there is authority for considering that his interest in the father's lifetime, and before partition, is a present interest of a proprietary and coparcenary nature--(Mitakshara, ch. i, Section 1 and Section 5); and the power to enforce partition of the ancestral estate implies such an interest, looking to the definition of partition given in Mitakshara, ch. i, Section 1, para. 4, and ch. i, Section 1, para. 23. But oven assuming such ownership on the part of the son, yet until partition takes place, or until the death of the father, natural or civil, the father, by reason of his paternal relation, and his position as head of the family, and its manager, is entitled to make lawful disposition of the property in the interest of the family. This is shown by ch. i, Section 5, paras. 9 and 10, Mitakshara, which, by marking the extent of the son's power of interference in the father's disposition of the property, shows that the power of disposition within certain limits is centred in the father. The son's enjoyment of the property is subject to the dispositions lawfully made by the father, and, if dissatisfied, the son's remedy will lie in any right ho may possess to enforce partition of the estate.

3. In this case there has been no illegal disposition of the property on the part of the father. It appears that the defendant objects to live with his mother-in-law, and insists on occupying part of a house which used to he rented, and which his father desires to dispose of in the way he considers most advisable.

4. I would decree the appeal and decree the claim, but, looking to the relationship subsisting between the parties, they should bear their own costs in all Courts.

Turner, Officiating C.J.

5. I concur in decreeing the appeal. Sons who are members of an undivided Hindu family acquire by birth an interest in the paternal as well as the ancestral estate, and are enttled in certain events to interfere to prevent waste or to enforce partition in the lifetime and without the consent of their father; but, while their interest is proprietary, it lacks the incident of dominion. 'They have not independent dominion, although they have a proprietary right.'--Colebrooke's Digest of Hindu Law, Bk. v, ch. vii, 433, vol. ii, p. 562, 3d ed.


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