TARABAI SHRINIWAS NAIK GUTTAL Vs. MURTACHARYA ANANTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal from a judgment of the Assistant Judge of Dharwar. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the preferential heir to the suit property under the provisions of the Bombay Act V of 1886, which is an Act amending the Bombay Watan Act III of 1874. The trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but in appeal the learned Assistant Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) IN the year 1927 the holder of the property was one Wasudevacharya, who died in that year, leaving the three defendants, as his daughters, and the plaintiff, as the son of a deceased divided brother. There is no question that under Hindu law the daughters would1 succeed as heirs. But Section 2 of Act V of 1886 provides that every1 female member of a watan family other than the widow, mothers or paternal grandmother of the last male owner, and every person claiming through a female, shall be postponed in the order of succession to any watan, or part thereof, or interest therein, devolving by inheritance after the date of the Act, to every male member of the family qualified to inherit such watan. The plaintiff claims under that Act to be heir to Wasudevacharya in preference to his daughters.

(3.) IN my view it is not necessary for us to consider the further question on which the lower Courts differed as to whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The trial Court considered that it was, and the lower appellate Court considered that it was not. I express no opinion on that question.