Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.73 seconds)
Adit Narayan Singh vs Mahabir Prasad Tiwari on 18 January, 1921 cites

Ramchandra Martand Waikar vs Vinayak Venkatesh Kothekar on 29 June, 1914

10. The learned Judges of the High Court appear to have been influenced in arriving at their decision of the appeal to their Court in this suit by opinions which they expressed in their judgments to the effect that Hanuman could have made efficacious offerings to the maternal great-grandfather and the material great-great-grandfather of Dhauukdhari and that Rajendra could make no offerings to any ancostor of Dhanukdhari. It is not necessary for the decision of this appeal that their Lordships should express any opinion as to the right, if any, of Hanuman and Rajendra respectively to make efficacious offerings to any ancestor of Dhanukdhari, as Rajendra is of the class of atinabaitdhu and Hanuman was of the class of matribandhu and the rule of succession as between them is the rule of the Mitakshara which has been cited above. That rule, in preferring the nearer to the more remote class of Bandhus, is not dependent on individual propinquity or on the efficacy of offerings to a deceased person. Of course a Bandhu must, in order to be heritable in a female line, fall within the fifth degree from the common male ancestor and must be so related to the deceased person that they were mutually Sapindas of one another, that is to say, where the Mitakshara applies, persona connected by particles of one body (see Ramchandra Martand Waikar v. Vinayak Venkatesh Kothehar but if these conditions are satisfied that rule takes effect. What the rule of succession under the Mitakshara may be as between Bandhus of the same class it is not necessary to decide.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Buddha Singh vs Laltu Singh on 29 July, 1915

9. Having regard to this decision if appears to be clear that in families governed by the law of the Mitakshara the right of succession amongst the three classes of Bandhus mentioned in the text is governed by the propinquity of the class; and accordingly that a pitribandhu does not succeed until the class of atmabandhus is exhausted and a matribandhu, does not succeed until the classes of at mabandhus and pitribandhus are exhausted. In the present case Hanuman was a matribandhs, the son of a mother's paternal aunt being expressly included in that class. Harihar, as a son of a mother's sister, was an at mabandhu; and the question to be determined is whether his son Rajendra was also included in that class. In their Lordships' opinion he was. The word "sons" in a similar context has been construed in a generic sense and has been held to include a grandson (Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh (1915) L.R. 42 I.A. 208 and in any case the grandson of a mother's sister falls within the general description of an apibabandhu, a person related to the propositus himself, and is not to be excluded only because he is not mentioned among the illustrations in the text of the Mitakshara. A similar view was taken in Krishna Ayyanyar v. enlcatarama Ayyangar (1905) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 115.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1