Skip to content


Mahtab Kuar and ors. Vs. Bhawani and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1880)ILR2All173
AppellantMahtab Kuar and ors.
RespondentBhawani and anr.
Excerpt:
.....area of secondary education. therefore, 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. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - but the reason does not seem to be a good one......after musammat ganesh's death is merely that the latter's name only was recorded after dariao singh's death. but the reason does not seem to be a good one. musammat ganesh, when her name was recorded as her husband's heir, [1733 acknowledged the joint heirship of musammat bhawani, and there is no reason to doubt that the latter continued to live in her husband's house, and to be supported out of his estate, with the other widow. musammat ganesh was probably the head of the house and the manager of the estate, but musammat bhawani cannot be regarded as having been out of possession. but, however this may be. we conceive it to be sufficient for the protection of her right that it had vested in her by law before her misconduct. in hex-presence none of the plaintiffs have any right to.....
Judgment:

Pearson, J.

1. There are no grounds for holding that Musammat Bhawani, defendant, appellant, became unchaste during the life of her husband Dariao Singh. He died in 1860, and her illegitimate child would seem to have been born in or about 1869. It may be concluded therefore that the right of inheritance to her husband's estate jointly with his other wife, Musammat Ganesh had vested in her by law long before she was guilty of misconduct. The lower Appellate Court considers that nevertheless she has forfeited that right by her misconduct because she had not acquired possession of her husband's estate before the death of his elder wife in 1870. His reason for thinking that she did not acquire possession of her husband's estate until after Musammat Ganesh's death is merely that the latter's name only was recorded after Dariao Singh's death. But the reason does not seem to be a good one. Musammat Ganesh, when her name was recorded as her husband's heir, [1733 acknowledged the joint heirship of Musammat Bhawani, and there is no reason to doubt that the latter continued to live in her husband's house, and to be supported out of his estate, with the other widow. Musammat Ganesh was probably the head of the house and the manager of the estate, but Musammat Bhawani cannot be regarded as having been out of possession. But, however this may be. We conceive it to be sufficient for the protection of her right that it had vested in her by law before her misconduct. In hex-presence none of the plaintiffs have any right to succeed to the estate of Dariao Singh aforesaid. It is unnecessary to discuss the question of the legitimacy of the defendant, appellant, Maharaj Singh. We decree the appeal with costs, and dismiss the suit by reversal of the lower Court's decree.


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