BHIKU KRISHNA BADHADE Vs. KESHAV RAMJI BADHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE think the learned District Judge was right in following the Full Bench decision in Basappa V/s. Rayava (1904) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 91, s.c. 6 Bom. L.R. 779 F.B. In that case it was held that a widow remarrying could succeed to the estate of her son by her former husband who died after her remarriage. WE do not think that case can be distinguished from the present case merely because the widow succeeded to the estate of her daughter, and not to the estate of her son. It was suggested that there might be some difference if the son had taken by survivorship, which could not be the case with the daughter, as the daughter must necessarily take by inheritance. The fact remains, whether the estate has vested in a son or a daughter, that the mother succeeds to both of them as heir, and consequently, if she could succeed to the estate of her son. after she had remarried she could equally succeed to the estate of her daughter. Considering that in Basappa v.Rayava (1904) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 91, s.c. 6 Bom. L.R. 779 F. B the learned Chief Justice was of opinion that they were not entitled to disregard a rule affecting rights of property established as far back as 1868 by the decision of a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Akora Suth V/s. Boreani (1868) 2 Beng. L.R. 199, A.J.C. and considering that he declined to give expression to his own opinion on the point, it certainly would be impossible for us sitting as a Division Bench to consider that that decision was wrong. Nor would there be any ground for our referning the question to another Full Bench. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs. Shah, J.

(2.) I concur in the order proposed on the ground that we are bound by the decision in Basappa V/s. Rayava (1904) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 91, s.c. 6 Bom. L.R. 779, F.B.