Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Sakharam Narayan Patvardhan vs Balkrishna Sadashiv Modak on 3 April, 1925 cites

Vedachela Mudaliar vs Subramania Mudaliar on 7 July, 1921

21. On the other hand on behalf of the defendant-respondent it is urged that propinquity is the only test for determining the question of preference among bandhus of the same class, that the maternal uncle being nearer from the mother's side than the father's sister's sons from the father's side the former should be preferred to the latter on the ground of nearer affinity. It is urged that in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar (1921) L.R. 48 I.A. : S.C. 24 Bom. L.R. 649 the test really adopted is one of propinquity and that the test of spiritual benefit to the propositus cannot be considered as affording any safe guide in a case where one bandhu can offer oblations to the maternal ancestors of the deceased and the other can offer oblations to two paternal ancestors to whom the deceased could have offered oblations. Mr. Shingne did not argue-at least I did not understand him to argue-that the spiritual benefit conferred by the maternal uncle is greater than that conferred by the father's sister's son. Several decisions have been referred to in the course of the argument: but there is none directly bearing on the competition between the two particular bandhus, whose claims we have to consider.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Balusami Pandithar vs Narayana Rau on 20 July, 1897

193 where the paternal uncle's daughter's son was preferred to the sister's daughter and the mother's sister's sons and Balusami Pandithar v. Narayana Rau (1897) I.L.R. 20 Mad. 342 where the sister's son's son was preferred to the maternal uncle's son Among other reasons for the conclusion in that case it was stated at the end of the judgment (p. 349): " Another fundamental principle of the law in favour of the third defendant's preferable right is that among bandhus of a class those who are ex parte paterna take before bandhus ex parte materna." The learned Judges relied on this division of atinabandhus into those two Hub-classes in para 598 of the Sarawvati Vilasa (Setlur's Collection of Hindu Law Book on Inheritance, p. 184): "Nor could it be urged here that the mother being nearer than the father, the matru-bandhus take the wealth before the pitru-bandhus, From the text, ' of these the mother is more important than the father, ' (2) the mother's precedence alone is stated and not that of the mother's bandhus. Therefore, we think it sound that the matrix bandhus should take the wealth only after the pitru-bandhus." Their lordships of the Privy Council remarked that a very small consideration would show that that passage had nothing to do with the members of the same class inter se. It only explained why pitrivbandhus were to be preferred to matru-bandhus, the mother's position being special to herself under an express rule.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Dattatraya Bhimrao Sabnis vs Gangabai Ganeshbhat on 16 September, 1921

27. In applying the test of affinity unencumbered by any considerations of spiritual benefit, it must be remembered that the daughter and the daughter's son occupy a very high place in the list of specified heirs. Then the sister (i.e. the father's daughter) is mentioned as an heir in the Vyavahara Mayukha after the specified heirs before the agnates and in this Presidency under the Mitakshara also the sister, though not expressly mentioned, has got an equally high place. The cases with reference to the position of the sister in this Presidency are referred to at p. 554 of the report in Dattatraya Bhimrao v. Gangabai (1921) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 541 : S.C. 24 Bom. L.R. 69. In the Madras Presidency the sister would occupy a much lower place even among bandhus.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rajeppa Ranappa Kundagol vs Gangappa Jotappa Mandwe on 10 April, 1922

L.R. 789 where the maternal uncle, not expressly mentioned, was preferred to mother's sister's son expressly mentioned, and in Rajeppa v. Gangappa (1922) I.L.R. 47 Bom. 48, where the question of the relative rights of two male atmabandhus related on the mother's side and expressly mentioned was considered independently of this consideration. In spite of the argument of Diwan Bahadur Kao based upon the foot-note No. 3 in Mandlik's Hindu Law at p. 82 of the translation which in its terms is baaed upon the rule quoted in the foot-note (No 7) in the Sanskrit text of the Vyavahara Mayukha at p. 54 of the same book, the preference of the father's sister's son to the maternal uncle cannot be based on that ground.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1