VIRANGAUDA LINGANGAUDA HIREGAUDAR Vs. YELLAPPA SHIDAPPA TAMBAKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us is of limited scope, being Whether the decision of the full bench in Sakharam Narayan v. Balkrishna Sadashiv (1925) I.L.R. 49 Bom. 739, s. c. 27 Bom. L.R. 1003, F.B. is no longer good law or requires reconsideration in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Jatindra Nath Roy v. Nagendra Nath Roy (1931) L.R. 58 I.A. 372, s.c. 33 Bom. L.R. 1411 and Balasnbrahmamya Pandya Thalaivar v. Subbayya Tevar. (1937) L.R. 65 I.A. 93, s.c. 40 Bom. L.R. 704

(2.) WE have to see whether, in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Jatindra Nath Roy v. Nagendra Nath Roy and Balasubrahmanya Pandya Thalaivar v. Subbayya Tevar, the decision of the full bench of this Court, which normally would bind us, is still good law. WE are not concerned to consider which view of the law we prefer.

(3.) IN the case before the full bench of this Court, Sakharam Narayan v. Balkrishna Sadashiv, again the question was the same as that arising in the present-case, Whether the mother's brother is to be preferred to the father's sister's son, and the Court there held that the father's sister's son was a preferential heir. So that the decision is exactly opposite to that of Privy Council in Balasubrahmanya Pandya Thalaivar] v. Subbayya Tevar, and it is suggested that the decision in Balasubrahmanya Pandya Thalaivar v. Subbayya Tevar must be limited to the application of the Mitakshara law in the 'Presidency of Madras, and that the full bench decision of this Court applying the Mitakshara law in this Presidency remains good law.