# MandiJ Mahalakshmamma v. Mantravadi (LL.R. 1947 Mad. 23)

- **Citation:** [1952] 1 S.C.R. 208
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JuRisn1cnoN : Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1950
- **Bench:** PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J, MuKHERJEA, DAs, VIVIAN BosE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mandij-mahalakshmamma-v-mantravadi-ll-r-1947-mad-23-1
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

[1952]
Hindu Law-Inheritance-Succession to property of femaleHindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929)-Applicability-Rights of sister's s<>ns-Pr<>perty of maiden-Order of succesnon.
The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (Act II of 1929)
which introduced
the son's daughter,
daughter's daughter,
sister
and sister's son between the grandfather and the paternal uncle in
the order of succession applies only to the separate property of
a Hindu male who dies intestate.
It does not alter the law as
regasds the devolution of any
kind of property owned
by a
Hindu male and does not purport to regulate succession to the
property of a Hindu female at all.
The Act cannot therefore be
invoked to determine the heirs of a Hindu female in respect of
her stridhan property.
The property of a Hindu female who dies as a maiden goes in
the first place to her uterine brothers, then to the mother and
then to the father, and on failure of the mother and father, it
goes to the nearest relations, that is to say, to the sapindas of
the father and in their default the sapindas of the mother, both
in the order of propinquity.
Under the Mitakshara law of succession as well as the Mayukha
law the paternal uncle's son is entitled to succeed to the pro.
pcrty of a Hindu in preference to sister's sons.
MandiJ Mahalakshmamma v. Mantravadi (LL.R. 1947 Mad. 23),
Shak_untala Bai v. Court <>f Wards
(LL.R. 194Z
Nag. 629),
Taluk_rai Kaur v. Bacha Kaur (LL.R. 26 Pat.
150)~ Kuppuswami
v. Manick_asari (A.LR. 1950 Mad. 196)
approved.
Shamrao v.
Raghunandan (LL.R. 1939 Bom. 228), Mst. Charjo. v. Dinanath
(A.LR. 1937 Lah. 196), Kehar Singh v. Attar Singh (A.LR. 1944
Lah. 1142), Indra Pal v. Humangi Devi (LL.R. 1949 All. 816) not
approved.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRisn1cnoN : Civil Appeal
No.
115 of 1950.
Appeal from the Judgment
and
Decree
of
the
Bombay High Court (Macklin and Rajadhyaksha JJ.)
dated 14th March, 1945, in First Appeal No. 274 of
1941 which arose out of a decree dated 15th March,
\
-
S.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
200
1941, of the First Class Subordinate Judge
·in Civil Suit No. 890 of 1938;
of Satara
19Sl
G. R. Madbhavi (K. R. Bergen, with him)
appellant.
Annagoulll
for the Nathgouda Patil
H. ]. Umrigar for respondent No. 1.
v.
Court of Wards
and Another.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India
(K. G.
Muk_herje11 ].
Datar, with him) for respondent No. 2.
1951. December 17.
The Judgment of
the
Court
, was delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-This
appeal
is
directed against a
judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated the 14th of March, 1945, which
affirmed, on appeal, the decision of the
First
Class
Subordinate Judge, Satara, passed in Civil Suit No. 890
of 1938.
The appellants before
us filed the suit as
plaintiffs in the original court, for establishment
of
their title to the property in dispute which is known
as. Chikurde Estate, on the allegation that they were,
under the Hindu Law, the nearest heirs of one Bhima-
. bai, who was admittedly the last holder
of
the estate.
The suit was brought initially against one defendant,
namely, the Court of Wards Satara,
and
admittedly
the Court of Wards tookJ possession of the property of
Bhimabai, while she was alive, and
is
continuing in
possession of the same even now after her death. Later
on, defendants 2, 3 and 4, who put forward rival claims
of succession to the estate, were allowed
to intervene
in the suit and were added as parties-defendants. The
Court of Ward11, which now figures as defendant No. 1,
took up, all through, a neutral attitude and expressed
its willingness to · hand over the estate to any person
who
would be declared
to be
rightfully
entitled
to it by the Court.
The Courts
below have negatived the claims of defendants 2
and
3
and
they
have not
come
up to
press
their claims in the
'appeal
before us.
The two rival claimants,
who
are now
on the
scene, are the plaintiffs
on one
side
and defendant No. 4 on the other, and the
. whole controversy in this
appeal
centres
rou

## Text

19'!
Dec. 17.
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNAGOUDA NATHGOUDA PATIL
ti.
COURT OF WARDS AND ANOTHER
[PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J., MuKHERJEA, DAs
and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]
[1952]
Hindu Law-Inheritance-Succession to property of femaleHindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929)-Applicability-Rights of sister's s<>ns-Pr<>perty of maiden-Order of succesnon.
The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (Act II of 1929)
which introduced
the son's daughter,
daughter's daughter,
sister
and sister's son between the grandfather and the paternal uncle in
the order of succession applies only to the separate property of
a Hindu male who dies intestate.
It does not alter the law as
regasds the devolution of any
kind of property owned
by a
Hindu male and does not purport to regulate succession to the
property of a Hindu female at all.
The Act cannot therefore be
invoked to determine the heirs of a Hindu female in respect of
her stridhan property.
The property of a Hindu female who dies as a maiden goes in
the first place to her uterine brothers, then to the mother and
then to the father, and on failure of the mother and father, it
goes to the nearest relations, that is to say, to the sapindas of
the father and in their default the sapindas of the mother, both
in the order of propinquity.
Under the Mitakshara law of succession as well as the Mayukha
law the paternal uncle's son is entitled to succeed to the pro.
pcrty of a Hindu in preference to sister's sons.
MandiJ Mahalakshmamma v. Mantravadi (LL.R. 1947 Mad. 23),
Shak_untala Bai v. Court <>f Wards
(LL.R. 194Z
Nag. 629),
Taluk_rai Kaur v. Bacha Kaur (LL.R. 26 Pat.
150)~ Kuppuswami
v. Manick_asari (A.LR. 1950 Mad. 196)
approved.
Shamrao v.
Raghunandan (LL.R. 1939 Bom. 228), Mst. Charjo. v. Dinanath
(A.LR. 1937 Lah. 196), Kehar Singh v. Attar Singh (A.LR. 1944
Lah. 1142), Indra Pal v. Humangi Devi (LL.R. 1949 All. 816) not
approved.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRisn1cnoN : Civil Appeal
No.
115 of 1950.
Appeal from the Judgment
and
Decree
of
the
Bombay High Court (Macklin and Rajadhyaksha JJ.)
dated 14th March, 1945, in First Appeal No. 274 of
1941 which arose out of a decree dated 15th March,
\
-
S.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
200
1941, of the First Class Subordinate Judge
·in Civil Suit No. 890 of 1938;
of Satara
19Sl
G. R. Madbhavi (K. R. Bergen, with him)
appellant.
Annagoulll
for the Nathgouda Patil
H. ]. Umrigar for respondent No. 1.
v.
Court of Wards
and Another.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India
(K. G.
Muk_herje11 ].
Datar, with him) for respondent No. 2.
1951. December 17.
The Judgment of
the
Court
, was delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-This
appeal
is
directed against a
judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated the 14th of March, 1945, which
affirmed, on appeal, the decision of the
First
Class
Subordinate Judge, Satara, passed in Civil Suit No. 890
of 1938.
The appellants before
us filed the suit as
plaintiffs in the original court, for establishment
of
their title to the property in dispute which is known
as. Chikurde Estate, on the allegation that they were,
under the Hindu Law, the nearest heirs of one Bhima-
. bai, who was admittedly the last holder
of
the estate.
The suit was brought initially against one defendant,
namely, the Court of Wards Satara,
and
admittedly
the Court of Wards tookJ possession of the property of
Bhimabai, while she was alive, and
is
continuing in
possession of the same even now after her death. Later
on, defendants 2, 3 and 4, who put forward rival claims
of succession to the estate, were allowed
to intervene
in the suit and were added as parties-defendants. The
Court of Ward11, which now figures as defendant No. 1,
took up, all through, a neutral attitude and expressed
its willingness to · hand over the estate to any person
who
would be declared
to be
rightfully
entitled
to it by the Court.
The Courts
below have negatived the claims of defendants 2
and
3
and
they
have not
come
up to
press
their claims in the
'appeal
before us.
The two rival claimants,
who
are now
on the
scene, are the plaintiffs
on one
side
and defendant No. 4 on the other, and the
. whole controversy in this
appeal
centres
round the
(
1951
'Annagouda
Nat/igouda Patil
v.
Court of Wards
and dnother.
Mukherjea /.
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
. point as to who amongst them
hav'e
the preferential
right to succeed to the disputed estate after the death
of Bhimabai. To ap;iceciate the material facts
of the
case and the contentions that have been raised by the
parties, it will be convenient to refer to the following
genealogy which is not disputed by either side.
\lithalrao Ld1ed J 896)
Ganpatrao (died 1914)
Tangawa alias
Anandibai (Deft. 2)
I
Adopted Deft. 3
Babasaheb on
3-2-1939
Niikanthrao
(died 1899)
I
I
1,
I
Anandrao
(died 1913)
Krishanabai
.
I
Vlthalrao (Deft. 4)
adopted by
Krishn::..b~d on
4-H-1924. Respdt. 2.
Firangojirao (died
Tanakka (predeceasGangabai (died
15-11-1919.)
ed her sister Gangabai
on 14-2-1924.)
I
without any issue),
Nathgauda
I
I
.
/
Annagauda
Balgauda (Plff. 2)
:Bhimabai (daughter)
(Plff. No. 1)
Appellant No. 2
(died on 27-1-1932).
Appellant No. 1
It is the case of both the parties that Vithalrao,
whose name appears at the top of the pedigree table,
and who was the common ancestor of the parties, held
the disputed property as watan property appertaining
to the hereditary office of Deshmukthi service.
Vithalrao was the recipient of a Sanad dated 28th November, 1892, under what was called the Gordon
Settlement,. the object of which was to commute services of
.certain watandars in that part of the country and
relieve them from liability to perform the services attached to their office on certain terms and conditions
which were agreed upon between· the Government on
the one hand and the watandars on the others.
The
tem1s of the settlement were generally embodied
in
Sanads and one such Sanad was granted to Vithalrao
in 1892.
It is not disputed that after
this settlement
· Vithalrao continued to
be
watandar as defined by
Bombay Act III of 1874, and that the watan in dispute was in impartible estate governed by the rule of
' l
J
r
\
:S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
211,
primogeniture. In 1896 Vithalrao died and he was
succeeded by his eldest son Gan.patrao under the law
1951
Annagouda
-of primogeniture.
Ganpatrao died childless
in
1914, Nathgouda Patil
leaving behind him his two widows Anandibai and .
v.
Indirabai, of whom the senior widow
Anandibai is
Court of Ward.r
.Oefendant No. 2 in the present suit.
Both the two
and Another.
brothers of Ganpatrao,
namely,
Nilkanthrao
and
Anandrao had predeceased him.
Nilkanthrao left behind him
one
son
named
Firangojirao
and two
daughters, while Anandrao died childless, leaving him
surviving his widow Krishnabai, who later on adopted
Vithalrao, who is defendant No. 4 in the suit Ganpatrao had left a will ·bequeathing all his watan and nonwatan properties to Firangojirao and the latter
suc-
·ceeded to the estate both under the will as well as under
the law
of
lineal
primogeniture,
he
being
the
:only
male
member of the
family
at that time.
Firangojirao died in 1919, leaving Bhimabai, his only
·daughter, who
was a
minor at
that time. On 23rd
September, 1921, the name of Bhimabai was entered
in the village records as watandar in place of Firangojirao and in the year following the Court of Wards,
:Satara
as~umed superintendence of Bhimabai'~ estate.
On 11th October, 1923, the Government
of Bombay
by their Resolution No. A-471 declared the Chikurde
Deshmukh watan as lapsed to Government, presumably
•on the ground that there was no male heir in the
watan family after the death of Firangojirao. A new
·entry was then made ·in the village
register which
recorded Bhimabai not as watandar,
but as heir of
Firangojirao and the lands
were described
as
being
. converted into ryotvari
lands
after
forfeiture
by
Government and subjected to full assessment. On 4th of
N~vember, 1924, Krishnabai, the widow of Anandrao,
;<1.dopted defendant · No. 4 as a son to her husband. On
17th January, 1932, Bhimabai died unmarried and her
>estate continued under the management of the Court
<>f Wards.
The appellants before
us,
who are the
sister's sons of ·Firangojirao, brought this suit on
5th
;qf August, 1938, and their case, in substance,
is that
:after the Resolution of the Government passed on 11th
Mukherjea f.
1951
AnnllJIOUda
NathgouJa Patil
v.
Court of W 11rds
•nti Anoth.,..
Mu/t..herj"" /.
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19521
ot' October, 1923, the Chikurde estate ceased to be a.
watan property and the succession to such estate was
governed by the ordinary rules of Hindu Law and not
by the provisions of Act V of 1886 which postpone
relations claiming through a female to a male member
of the watan family. It was urged that the
property
being the absolute property
of
Bhimabai
and she
having died while still a maiden, the plaintiffs, being
the nearest heirs of her father, were entitled to succeed
under the general rules of Hindu Law. As said already,.
the defendant No. 4, who is respondent No. 2 in this
appeal, was added as a party-defendant
some
time
after the suit was filed and the contention raised. on his
behalf was that by reason of his having been duly
·adopted to Anandrao on 4th of November, 1924,
he
was the nearest heir to the property in suit which was
a watan property and prayed that a declaration in his.
favour might be made by the court.
The defendant
No. 3 claimed to have been adopted as a son to her
husband Ganpatrao by Anandibai, the defendant No. 2,.
some time in February 1939.
The trial court on a consideration of
the evidence
came to the conclusion that the Chikurde estate
was.
an impartible property governed by the rules of primogeniture. It was
held that, it being an impartible
joint estate, the rule of survivorship still applied
and
consequently on the death of Ganpatrao, without leaving any son, the estate passed by survivorship of the
next senior branch
which
was
that of Firangojirao ..
The view taken by the Subordinate Judge is that
after Firangojirao's death Bhimabai took only a provisional interest in the property which was liable to be
divested by the emergence of a male member by
adoption in the family and
in fact
she was legally
divested by her interest in the property when defe.ndant
No. 4 was adopted by Anandrao's
widow.
In the
opinion of the Subordinate Judge the resolution of the
Government treating
the Chikurde
estate as lapsed
was premature and could not be made legally so long
as there were widows
living, who were capable of
adopting sons.
The trial judge held further that even
-
•
-
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
213
if Bhimabai was taken
to
have held
the
property
as watan till her death,
the next
heir
to
succeed
under the Bombay Act V of 1886 would be defendant No. 4 and not the
p!aintiffs.
The result
was
that
the
plaintiffs'
suit
was
dismissed.
The
plaintiffs then took an appeal to the High Court of
Bombay and this appeal was
heard by
a
Division
Bench consisting of Macklin
and
Rajadhyakisha
JJ.
The learned Judges dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the decision of the trial court,
though
the reasons
given by them are not the same as those given by the
trial judge. It was held by the High Court, on a
construction of the Sanad granted to Vithalrao in 1892,
that the. order of lapse or forfeit1J1re of the watan estate passed by the Government in the year 1923 on
the ground of failure of male heirs was not a valid and
legal order and although under the relevant clause of
the Sanad the Government could, in the absence of
male heirs, resume the watan in the sense· that they
could make the property liable to full as_sessment, the
other incidents of the watan estate still continued.
Consequently, Act V of 1886 would still govern succession to such property and defendant No. 4 had
preferential rights over the plaintiffs under section 2 of
that Act. It is against this decision that the plainti~ have come up on appeal to this court .
The learned Counsel appearing
on
behalf of the
plaintiffs-appellants has raised
a
two-fold contention
in support of the appeal.
It has
been contended in
....
the first place that the
High Court was m error in
holding that the Chikurde estate retained
its
watan
character even after it was resumed by the
Government by its Resolution of 11th of October, 1923 ; and if
it was non-watan, the plaintiffs would be nearer heirs
to Bhimabai than defendant No. 4.
The other
contention raised is that even if the property remained
watan in the hands of Bhimabai,
the
latter
would
have to be regarded as a watandar in the true sense of
the word and would be a fresh stock
of descent.
In
J
that view the plaintiffs would come-within the family of
28
1951
Annagouda
Nathgouda Patil
v.
Court of Wards
and Another.
Muk.herjea /.
1951
Annagouda
Nathgouda Patil
v.
Court of Wards
and Another.
Mukherjea /.
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
watandar as defined in Bombay Act V of 1886, whereas the defendant No. 4 would be outside the family.
The points undoubtedly are interesting, but having
regard to the view which we have decided to take, it
would not be necessary to
investigate
the merits of
either of them.
It may
be
pointed
out that the
learned Judges of the High Court proceeded throughout on the assumption that
the
plaintiffs would have
preferential rights of succession if the
property was
regarded as non-watan in the hands of Bhimabai. It
is only if the property was watan that the Bombay
Act of 1886 will apply and the plaintiffs, who were
descended through females, would
be
postponed
to
defendant No. 4 who by adoption
became
a male
member of the family.
Mr.
Setalvad,
appearing for
defendant No. 4 who is respondent No. 2 in this appeal,
contended before us that this assumption
is
wrong,
and that even if the property was
regarded as nonwatan property and belonging absolutely to
Bhimabai
as her stridhan, still as heir of Bhimabai' s absolute
property the defendant No. 4 would have higher
rights than the plaintiffs.
As this
point
was
not
touched upon in the judgments of either of the courts
below, we heard the learned Counsel on both sides at
great length upon it and the conclusion that we have
reached is that the contention of the learned AttorneyGeneral is well-founded and must prevail.
For the purpose of this argument we would assume
that the
property
in suit
was
non-watan · stridhan
property of
Bhimabai
and
the
only
question
is,
as to who amongst the rival claimants would be the
nearer heir after her death according
to the Hindu
Law of inheritance ? It is
admitted that Bhimabai
died while she was a maiden
and that a maiden's
property
under
the Hindu
Law
goes
in
the
first place to her uterine brothers, in default of them
to the mother and then to the father. This is according to the text of Baudhayana(1) which is accepted by
all the commentators.
Viramitrodaya adds to this that
"on failure of mother and father
it goes to their
( 1) See Mitakshara, Chap. II, sec. xi, para 30.
-
-
_,
-
\
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
215
nearest relations"(1). It has been held in a large number
1951
of cases that the expression "nearest relations
of
the
Annagouda
parents" means and refers to the sapindas of- the Nathgouda Patil
father
and in their default the sapindas of
the
v.
mother both in order of propinquity(2).
In the
case
Court of Wards
before us, both the plaintiffs
and
defendant No. 4
and Another.
are sapindas
of Firangojirao,
the
plaintiffs
being
Mukheriea /.
the sister's sons
of
Firangojirao, while
the latter
is
his
paternal
uncle's
son.
It is
not
disputed
that apart
from
the
changes
introduced
by
the
Hindu Law of Inheritance
(Amendment)
Act, (A{:t
II of 1929), the
place
of the
paternal uncle's son
in the line
of
heirs under the Mitakshara Law of
Succ<'"sion is much higher than that of the sister's son,
and the Mayukha Law, which prevails in the State of
Bombay, does not make any difference in this respect.
Under the Mitakshara Law, the paternal uncle comes
just after the paternal grandfather and his son follows
him immediately.
By 'Act II of 1929, however, four
other telations have been introduced between the grandfather and the paternal uncle and they
are the son's
daughter, daughter's daughter, sister and
sister's
son,
and the paternal uncle and his son are thus postponed
to these four relations by the Hindu Law of Inheritance Act of 1929. The question is, whether the provisions of this Act can all be invoked to
determine
the heirs of a Hindu female in respect of her stridhan
property. The object of the Act as
stated in
the
preamble is to alter the order in which certain heirs
of a Hindu male dying intestate are entitled to succeed
to his estate ; and section 1 (2) expressly lays
down
that "the Act applies only to persons who but for the
passing of this Act would have been subject to the Law
of Mitakshara in
respect
of
the
provisions herein
enacted, and it applies to such persons in respect only
of the property of males not held in coparcenary and
not disposed of by will".
Thus the scope of the Act
is limited.
It governs succession only to the separate
property of a Hindu male who dies intestate.
It does
(I) See Viramitrodaya, Chap. V, Part II, Sec. 9.
(2) See Mayne's Hindu Law, 11th edition, Art. 621, page 741.
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952)
1951
Annagouda
Nathgouda Patil
not alter the law
as
regards
the devolution of any
other k:ind of property owned by a Hindu male and
does not purport to regulate succession to the property
of a Hindu female at all. It is to be noted that the
Act does not make these four relations statutory heirs
under the Mitakshara Law under all circumstances and
for all purposes ; it makes them heirs only when
the
propositus is a male and the property
in respect to
which it is sought to be applied is his separate property. Whether this
distinction
between
male
and
female
propositus
is at
all reasonable
is
another
matter, but the language of the Act makes this distinction expressly and so long as the language is clear and
unambiguous, no other consideration is at all relevant.
This is the view which has been taken, and in our
opinion quite rightly, in a number of
cases of
the
Madras, Patna and Nagpur High Courts(').
We are
not unmindful of the fact that
a
contrary view has
been expressed in certain decisions
of
the Bombay,
Labore and Allahabad High Courts(').
The line of
reasoning that is
adopted in
most
of the decisions
where the contrary view is taken can be thus stated
in the language of Mr. Justice Somjee(8 ) :-
v.
Court of Wards
«nd Another.
"The Act is not sought to be applied to determine the
succession to the stridhan of a Hindu maiden but is
sought to be used by the petitioner
to
ascertain
the
fourth class of heirs to the stridhan of a Hindu maiden
mentioned at page 139 of Mulla's Hindu Law ...... The
heirs of the father at the time of her death have to be
ascertained in accordance with the Hindu Law
as it
existed at the time of the death of Bai Champubai.
Thus the Act comes into operation for ascertaining the
order in which the heirs of her father would be entitled
to succeed to Ills estate, because the heirs of the father
(1) Vide Manda Mahalakshmamma v. Mantravadi (I.L.R. 1947
Mad. 23); Shakuntalabai v. Caurt of Wards (I.L.R. 1942 Nag. 629};
Tulukrai Kuer v. Bacha Kuer (I.L.R. 26 Pat. 150); Kuppuswami v.
Manickasari (A.LR. 1950 Mad. 196).
(2) Shamrao v. Raghunandan (I.L.R. 1939 Born. 228); Mst. Charia
v. Dinanath (A.LR. 1937 Lah. 196); Kehar Singh v. Attar Singh (A.LR.
1944 Lah. 442}; Indra Pal v. Humangi Debi (I.L.R. 1949 All. 816}.
(3) Vide Shamrao v. Raghunandan (I.L.R. 1939 Born. 228 to 230).
-
~
-
--
)
:S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217
in the order of propinquity who would be entitled to
succeed to him if he clioo · on August 3, 1937, would be
the heirs of Bai Champubai in the
absence of the
uterine brother, the mother and the father."
It is true that we have got to ascertain who the heirs
·of the father are at the date when the daughter dies,
but the enquiry is for the purpose of finding out who
the successor to the estate of the daughter is.
This
being the subject of the enquiry, the operation of Act
II of 1929 is excluded by its express terms and for that
purpose the · Act is to be treated as non-existent. In
other words, the stridhan heirs are to be ascertained
with reference to the general provisions of
the Hindu
Law of Inheritance ignoring the statutory. heirs
who
have been introduced by the Act. The fallacy
in the .
line of approach adopted in these cases seems to
be
that they treat the Inheritance Act of 1929 as amending or
altering the Mitakshara Law of succession in
all cases and for all purposes, whereas the Act has
absolutely no operation when succession
to
the separate property of a male is not the subject-matter of
investigation.
The result
is that in our opinion the
plaintiffs are not the nearest heirs of Bhimabai even
assuming that the property
was
non-watan and
belonged to her absolutely. The appeal will
thus stand
dismissed. We make no order as to costs in this appeal
.except that defendant No. 1,
the. Court of Wards;
would have its costs as between attorney
and
client
-0ut of the estate.
The order for costs made by the
-courts below will stand.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant : M. S. K. Sastri.
Agent for respondent No. 1 : P. A. Mehta.
Agent for respondent No. 2 : K. /. Kale.
1951
Annagouda
N athgouda . Patil
v.
Court of Wards
•nd Another.
MukherjeR /.