BAI PRATAPGAVRI Vs. MULSHANKAR PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has tiled this suit for a declaration that she, as the heir of her deceased husband, is entitled to all the properties left by him and that Bai Premcore, her mother-in-law, had no right or interest in the estate left by her son except that of maintenance and residence and for a declaration that the deed of settlement made by Premcore is null and void and does not affect the plaintiff's interest in her husband's estate; and that the first defendant has no right or interest therein as a trustee and in the alternative for a declaration that Bai Premcore had no right to fix the amount of her maintenance and the amount so fixed is not binding on her.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff was married to one Maganlal Uhelabhai in the year 1915 when she was about twelve years old and Maganlal Ghelabhai died on October 27, 1916, leaving him surviving the plaintiff his childless widow and a mother named Bai Premcorebai. There is no dispute that the plaintiff should have been the heir of Maganlal Ghelabhai according to Hindu law but the defendant's case is that the plaintiff is disqualified from inheriting the estate left by her deceased husband because she is deaf and dumb.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that in order to disqualify her from sharing in the inheritance she must be proved to have been deaf and dumb from birth or in other words congenitally. The plaintiff's case is that she was attacked with plague in Samvat year 1964 and in consequence of that disease she lost her power of speech and also her sense of hearing. The plaintiff's case is that unless it is satisfactorily proved that she was deaf and dumb by birth she is not disqualified from sharing in the inheritance.