VITHAL RAMKRISHNA Vs. PRAHLAD RAMKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The interesting question of Hindu law argued in this appeal arises out of the following facts :-One Sitaram died leaving a son Rarnkrishna and a widow Gangabai, the step-mother of Rarnkrishna. Ramkrishna died in 1892 leaving three sons Vithal, Vishnu and Pandharinath by his first wife, who is dead, and two sons-Prahlad and Dinanath by his second wife, Bai Parvati, who is alive. Prahlad and Dinanath with their mother Parvati sued the other three sons of Ramkrishna for a partition of the family estate. Among other things the defendants urged that Gangabai-their grand-mother-was entitled to a share of the property, that she was a necessary party to the suit and that the property in suit was acquired by Sitaram.

(2.) The learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia held that the grand-mother was not entitled to any share in the property according to Hindu law, and accordingly disallowed the objection. He decided the other issues in the suit, and passed a decree for the partition of the estate in favour of the plaintiffs. It was held that Bai Parvati was entitled to an equal share with the sons of Ramkrishna. The defendants have appealed against the decree and renewed their objection that Gaugabai is a necessary party to the suit, as she is entitled to a share in the property in suit according to Hindu law.

(3.) We have had the point argued without going into the other questions arising in this appeal. The argument has proceeded on the footing that the property in suit is ancestral family property (i.e., it was ancestral in the hands of Ramkrishna), and I have considered the question of law on that basis. I say nothing as to whether the whole property in suit was ancestral in the hands of Ramkrishna in fact or not.