Judgement

APPEAL from a decree of the High Court of Bombay (Aug. 2, 1876) affirming all the findings upon which a decree of the Sub- ordinate Judge of Belgaum (Jan. 8, 1875) had been based, but varying the same by directing that in lieu of awarding a fixed sum of money, Rs. 71,412, to the Respondent, there should be a decree for partition and account.

The suit was brought by the Respondent for a partition of family property, and to set aside a will whereby his father had substantially disposed of the whole of the undivided ancestral property in favour of the Appellant, his second son, thereby disinheriting his elder son, the Respondent. Both Courts decided that this will was invalid and illegal, and decreed to the Respondent one half of the family property.

The facts of the case are set out in the judgment of their Lordships. The principal questions of law which arose in the suit were three—

1st. Under the law of the Mitakshara can a father make a valid will of ancestral moveable estate wholly in favour of one son ?

2nd. Assuming that in this case he had not the power of doing so, was the Respondent barred by limitation (Act XIV. of 1859, sect. 1, cl. 13) by reason of his having ce