BHAGIRATHIBAI BHALCHANDRA NARAYAN Vs. DWARKABAI SHANKAR BAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit by the daughter-in-law against the donees of the father-in-law of his self- acquired property. The finding of both the lower Courts is that when the husband of the plaintiff died the income of the ancestral property was Rs. 10 a year. Subsequently the father migrated from his native village Nivendi in Ratnagiri to the Thana District and acquired immoveable property. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance out of the ancestral Nivendi property and also certain property which though self-acquired was not the subject-matter of the gift by the father-in-law but was inherited by the plaintiff's sisters-in- law.

(2.) We have heard a learned and interesting argument from Mr. Gharpure on behalf of the appellant who has relied on certain texts appearing in Chapter XII relating to resumption of gifts in Mitakshara on verses 175 and 176 of Yadnyavalkya, Gharpure's Translation, pp. 312 and 813, Mayukha, Chap. IX, placitum 4, Gharpure's Translation, page 168, and Texts of Narada, Chap. XIII, verses 4,5 and 6. It is urged that the donees of the self-acquired property of the father-in-law are liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiff out of such self-acquired property and that the texts were not considered in the previous decisions of this Court, and reference is made to Gholapchandra Sircar's Hindu Law, 6 Edn., pp. 605 and 606. It would have been necessary to go into the texts and consider whether they are preceptive or mandatory and support the contention on behalf of the appellant if the question were res integra, but we think that we are bound by the decisions of this Court in the cases of Savitribai V/s. Laxmibai and Sadasiv Ganoba (1878) I.L.R. 2 Bom. 573, F.B., Kalu V/s. Kashibai (1882) I.L.R. 7 Bom. 127, Yamunabai V/s. Manubai, s.c. 1 Bom. L.R. 95, and Bai Parvati V/s. Tarwadi Dolatram, s.c. 2 Bom. L.R. 894.

(3.) In the full bench case of Savitribai V/s. Laxmibai it was held that a Hindu widow is not entitled to maintenance from her husband's relatives whether they are separated or unseparated from him at the time of his death if they have not any ancestral estate or estates belonging to him in their hands. At pages 610 and 611 the texts of Mitakshara, Chapter IX, pl. 2 to 5, which prohibited the alienation of property until maintenance of the family was provided for, and the texts of Smriti Chandrika and Narada, were referred to and considered.