RANGUBAI Vs. LAXMAN LALJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Chandrachud J. , as it raise the important question of interpretation of S. 6 of the Hindu Succession of Act, 1956, and also as some doubt was entertained by the learned of the Division Bench in Shirmabai Bhimgonda v. Kaglonda Bhimgonda, 66 Bom LR 351 [air 1964 Bom 263] of which I was a member.

(2.) THE facts are the plaintiff is the widow of Lalji patil. At this death, he left the plaintiff and the defendants his adopted son. The window filed the present suit, claiming half share in the property. The trial court granted one-sixth share to her and the learned assistant judge with slight modification confirmed this decree.

(3.) THE editor of Sir Dinshaw Mulla's principles of Hindu Law. Expresses the opinion that in view the Explanation to S. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, only one - third share in the coparcenery property would-be available for distribution - in this case between the plaintiff and the defendants - and if this is the correct interpretation of the section. In shriamabai Bhimgonda Patil's case, 66 Bom LR 351, [air 1965 Bom 263] the Division Bench or which I was a member decided that , in view of S. 4 of this act, the wife right to the claim and a share at the notional partition was abrogated as it was merely in lieu of maintenance's and therefore the whole of the share offer husband which was equal to that the to son, that the one-half, was available for partition between the next heirs. If that the judgment is rights the plaintiff would-be entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property.