Back
1920 Supreme(Mad) 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
S Aiyar, Napier
Chinna Pichu Iyengar Alias K.
Versus
Padmanabha Iyengar, Minor
Decided On : 29 July, 1920
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Mitakshara text and the principles underlying bandhu relationship, as applied in the context of inheritance among bandhus.
Headnote:
Bandhu - Hindu Law - Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand 6 C. 119 (F.B.), Mitakshara Chapter II, Section 6 - The court discussed the principles underlying sapinda relationship and bandhu relationship, and the interpretation of the Mitakshara text in relation to inheritance among bandhus. The court relied on the decision in Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand and the Mitakshara to determine the heritability of the plaintiff as a bandhu.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed entitlement to a moiety of the estate of a deceased male owner as an heir and sought to set aside certain alienations. The main issue was whether the plaintiff, as a heritable bandhu, was entitled to inherit the estate of the last male owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff, as the paternal grandfather's mother's brother's grandson, was not entitled to inherit based on the principles of bandhu relationship and the interpretation of the Mitakshara text. The court relied on the decision in Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand and the Mitakshara to support its finding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff, as a heritable bandhu, was entitled to inherit the estate of the last male owner. The court also considered the interpretation of the Mitakshara text and the principles underlying bandhu relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Mitakshara text and the principles established in the case of Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand, which determined the heritability of the plaintiff as a bandhu.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal with costs, ruling that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit the estate of the last male owner.
Napier, J.
1. In this suit the plaintiff claims to be entitled as an heir to a moiety of the estate of one Ramsawmy Iyengar, deceased, and to set aside certain alienations as not binding on him. The sole question before this Court in second appeal is, whether the plaintiff is a heritable bandhu and is entitled to the estate of the last male owner.
2. The District Munsif has found, and there is no dispute on this point, that the last male owner is the plaintiffs paternal grandfathers mothers brothers grandson and has held that as such he is not entitled to inherit. The lower Appellate Court accepted that view.
3. It is argued before us that the statement to this effect in Dr. Sarvadhikaris Book on Hindu Law is not correct and that, even if it was thought good law previously, the decision of the Privy Council in Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 529 : 37 A. 604 : 29 M.L.J. 434 : 2 L.W. 897 : 13 A.L.J. 1007 : 18 M.L.T. 409 : 17 Bom. L.R. 1022 : 20 C.W.N. 1 : 22 C.L.J. 481 : (1915) M.W.N. 772 : 42 I.A. 208 (P.C.) renders this view no longer tenable. I do not propose to consider the principles underlying sapinda relationship on which this plaintiff is excluded. It seems to me sufficient to say that the view taken by this learned text-writer is supported by a decision of the Calcutta High Court as long ago as Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand 6 C. 119 (F.B.) : 6 C.L.R. 500 : 5 Ind. Jur. 585 : 8 Shome L.R. 146 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 78. In that case the question which is at issue here was not directly at issue, but the Full Bench used this relationship as an illustration of a case in which sapindaship did not exist, and the principle they laid down was as follows: "Although F. is within six degrees from the common ancestor yet B., the propositus, not being a descendant of the line of the maternal grandfather either of F. or of his father or mother they are not sapindas to each other." F in the Calcutta case would represent the plaintiff in this case. It is contended before us that this dictum is obiter, which is true. But it is used by the Bench as axiomatic of the principles governing the relationship between the bandhus. Mr. Sreenivasa Iyengar, for the respondents, finds authority for it in Chapter II, Section 6, placitum i, of the Mitakshara. His argument, is that cognates to be heirs must be one of the three classes referred to in the passage, i.e., related to the person himself, or to his father or to his mother. He admits that the persons enumerated in the placitum can be extended but he contends that the classes cannot be extended. The appellant contends that, on a proper reading of the passage, the plaintiff does come within the class.
4. I can only deal with this question on authority. If I found that the dictum in Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand 6 C. 119 (F.B.) : 6 C.L.R. 500 : 5 Ind. Jur. 585 : 8 Shome L.R. 146 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 78 had ever been doubted or departed from the matter would be different. But where I find it treated as axiomatic, and where there is no case in which it has ever been doubted, I cannot treat it as a mere obiter dictum.
5. In a later case in Babu Lal v. Nanku Ram 22 C. 339 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 228 the decision in Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand 6 C. 119 (F.B.) : 6 C.L.R. 500 : 5 Ind. Jur. 585 : 8 Shome L.R. 146 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 78 and the rule expounded in Dr. Saravadhikaris Book to the same effect were referred to with approval, and the principles underlying bandhu relationship laid down in that case accepted It was suggested before us that the decision in Umaid Bahadur v. Udoi Chand 6 C. 119 (F.B.) : 6 C.L.R. 500 : 5 Ind. Jur. 585 : 8 Shome L.R. 146 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 78 was peculiar to Calcutta. But Babu Lal v. Nanku Ram 22 C. 339 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 228 shows that it is based on the Mitakshara. Unless, therefore, a different view has to be taken based on the authority of the Privy Council in Buddha Singh v. Laltu Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 529 : 37 A. 604 : 29 M.L.J. 434 : 2 L.W. 897 : 13 A.L.J.
