MAHABLESHWAR KRISHNAPA Vs. RAMCHANDRA MANGESH KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Mukhtyarnamah (Ex. 68) was executed by Krishnappa in order to provide for the management of the estate (including the settlement of money debts and pecuniary claims) both during Krishnappa s life-time and after his death until the attainment of majority by the eldest minor in the family, i. e., the first plaintiff. The document "was similar in design to the Hibbahnamah in Raj Lukhee Dabea v. Gokool Chunder (1869) 13 M.I.A. 209 but was dissimilar in that instead of prohibiting the guardian and manager from making gifts or sales it gave Manjappa after Krishnappa s death power to manage as he thought fit.

(2.) In a family consisting in other respects of minors and women ." it is a matter of practical convenience that the dying adult male should be able to make arrangements for guardianship and management, otherwise a dead lock and loss would be arrived at through various widows quarrelling among themselves.

(3.) The Privy Council in the case above-mentioned have recognized the right of the dying adult to appoint managers and trustees without interfering with the succession. So also in Soobah Doorgah Lal Jha v. Rajah Neelannnd Singh (1867) 7 W.R. 73, the Bengal High Court held that a Hindu might by will appoint one widow guardian of all his sons to the exclusion of the natural mother of two of them even though the will should prove invalid so far as it purported to affect the devolution of the property.