SHRIPATRAO MADHAVRAO SHINDE Vs. PARVATIBAI GANPATRAO SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the question that arises for decision is the succession to certain lands which are governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, V of 1886. The facts briefly are these. One Madhavrao Shinde was the owner of these lands. On his death they devolved upon his two sons Shripatrao who is the plaintiff and Ganpatrao. Ganpatrao died leaving his widow Parvatibai who is defendant No.1. Ganpatrao had a son Ramehandra who died on July 22, 1921, issueless and unmarried. On April 28, 1928, Bajirao was adopted by Parvatibai, and the question is whether by reason of the adoption Bajirao, defendant No.2, is entitled to the watan lands.

(2.) THERE can be no doubt that if succession was governed by the ordinary principles of Hindu law, in view of the recent decisions of the Privy Council, although on the death of Ramehandra the property would go to the next reversioner of Ganpatrao, viz. plaintiff, on the adoption of Bajirao on April 23, 1928, the property vested in the plaintiff would be divested and Bajirao would become entitled to those properties. But Mr. Walavalkar contends that the ordinary and normal rule of the Hindu law of succession cannot and should not apply to properties which are watan lands and governed by Act V of 1886. In support of his contention he first relies on a passage in the case of Anant Bhikappa Fatil v. Shankar Bamchandra Patil (1943) 46 Bom. L. R. 1, 4, p. c. Sir George Rankin in delivering the judgment points out that the -properties in that suit were governed by Act V of 1886 and he goes on to say that that Aet imposes -a special rule of succession whereby every female, other than the widow of the last male owner, is postponed to every male member of the watan family qualified to inherit, and Sir George Rankin adds (p. 4): No other feature special to watan property was relied on or discussed in the Courts in India or mentioned in the printed case lodged by the parties upon this appeal, and their Lordships are not called upon or prepared to consider whether upon other grounds the law applicable to watandars or watan property varies from the ordinary Hindu law.

(3.) NOW, on the adoption of Bajirao by the first defendant he became the male heir of Ganpatrao next in succession to Ramchandra, and therefore, when a claim is put forward by him, it is put forward as the male heir of Ganpatrao who is nearer in succession than the plaintiff. The whole fallacy in Mr. Walavalkar's argument lies in this that it is not through the widow of Ganpatrao, the first defendant, that Bajirao claims. If he was claiming through any female, undoubtedly under Section 2 he would be postponed, but his claim, although it arises by reason of the adoption by defendant No.1, is not through her but his title is paramount, and on adoption he becomes the male heir of Ganpatrao. Therefore, I see nothing whatever in Section 2 which suggests that the line of male heirs as laid down under ordinary Hindu law should be altered as far as watan lands are concerned and the ordinary Hindu law as now declared by the Privy Council is that on adoption the adopted son divests the property vested in the next reversioner.