take hold of and will correct. The Full Bench case in Bapu Apaji v. Kashinatha Sadoba [1917] 41 Bom. 438, was cited which sums ... Bombay case decided by a Full Bench of five learned Judges Bapu Apaji v. Kashinatha Sadoba [1917] 41 Bom. 438 and I cannot do better
against the widow. That learned Judge followed another decision in Diwali v. Apaji Ganesh (1886) I.L.R., 10 Bom., 342, which held a similar ... held that property given for maintenance is transferable and distinguished Diwali v. Apaji Ganesh (1886) I.L.R., 10 Bom., 342, and other cases which
from interfering. They consider that the rule laid down in 'Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vital', 10 Bom H C 351 is correct
Justice Bhashyam Aiyangar in this case has been followed in Sitaram Apaji Kode v. Shridhar Anant Prabho 27 B. 292 and apparently quoted with approval
respondent is of a Pull Bench of the Bombay High Court in Apaji Thamaji Patil v. Ragho Bhivraj Patil
Butler's Coke on Litleton cited in Bapuji Apaji v. Senavaraji Marvadi 2 B. 231 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 580. The passage
decision of the majority of the High Court at Bombay in Apaji Narhar Kulkarni v. Ramchandra Ravji Kulkarui I.L.R. 16 Bom. 29. After
male reversioner. The other decisions to which we are referred are Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal 10 Bom. H.C.R., 351, Madari v. Malki
Syamkisor v. Dineschandra ( 1918) 31 Cal L.J. 75 and Bapu Apaji v. Kashinath Sadoba (1916) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 438, the decision
Respondent relied on the reported ruling in the case of Apaji Narhar
Kulkarni and another Vs. Ramchandra Ravji Kulakarni, reported ... learned Counsel for the Respondent
reported in the case of Apaji Narhar Vs. Ramchandra ((1891) ILR 16
Bom. 29, F.B), here the facts
