VITHALDAS GOVINDRAM GANDHI Vs. VADILAL CHHAGANLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant applied for limited letters of administration in respect of certain property in the Ahmedabad District which, he said, belonged to one Vadilal Gulabji who died on April 16, 1912. At the date of his death he left a son Jivrara, who was then a lunatic though he does not appear to have been a congenital lunatic. Jivram was married and had a daughter called Bai Jashi. Bai Jashi married one Vadilal Chhaganlal and died on June 16, 1930. THE petitioner presented his application on behalf of the lunatic Jivram since he had been appointed a curator of the lunatic by the Huzur Court of the Mansa State. THE property in respect of which letters of administration were asked consisted of certain shares in a company at Ahmedabad, THE application was contested by Vadilal Chhaganlal, the husband of the deceased Bai Jashi, and the question on which the parties fought in the Court of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad was whether the lunatic Jivram was entitled to the estate of the deceased Vadilal Gulabji as his heir. THE opponents" case was that Jivram was not entitled as he was a lunatic, and the learned Assistant Judge, following the case of Bapuji v. Pandurang (1882) I. L. R. 6 Bom. 616 decided that the lunatic Jivram was debarred from taking the property as the heir of the deceased Vadilal Gulabji and that the petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to letters of administration under Section 246 of the Indian Succession Act.

(2.) THE curator has appealed and Mr. C. K. Shah on behalf of the respondents has taken a preliminary objection that the curator has no locus standi inasmuch as his appointment has been cancelled by the Huzur Court of the Mansa State. We have not all the papers here on this point; but it appears that the order of the Huzur Court of the Mansa State has been suspended and prima facie the appellant, V. G. Gandhi, is still the curator. THEre would apparently be no objection to his being recognised by a Court in British India since he is the person who has been appointed by the Mans Court and presumably the lunatic was domiciled in Mansa.

(3.) MR. Shah has drawn our attention to a full bench decision of the Madras High Court in Pudiava Nadar v. Pavanasa Nadar (1922) I. L. R. 45 Mad. 949. That case merely decides that the rule of Hindu law that a congenitally blind person is excluded from succession, has not become obsolete. It is not on all fours with the present case. The learned advocate relies on some observations of MR. Justice Coutts Trotter at p. 976 where the learned Judge expresses the view that the rule of exclusion in the Mitakshara applies to those who take by survivorship as well as to those who take by succession. This may be conceded; but it does not touch the main point whether a member of a family who becomes insane loses his status as a member of a coparcenery. On this ground we differ from the learned Assistant Judge.