MT. RUKHMABAI Vs. JAIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (After stating facts the judgment continued.) It will be convenient in the first instance to dispose of the appeal of the defendants. In this appeal two paints are, in reality, raised. The first six grounds of appeal attack the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the Benares, and not the Mayukha, School of Hindu Law applies in the facts of this case, while the last two grounds of appeal relate to the house which formed part of Ladkoo's share, which, it is alleged, should have been retained by the Defendant No. 1 either in whole or, at least, to the extent of a 2 anna share. I proceed at once to discuss the most important question in this appeal, viz., what School of Law applies to the family in question,

(2.) THE main pleading of the defendants on this question was contained in para. 6 of the written statement, dated the 30th July 1924. It was therein alleged that the ancestors of Ladkoo Patel migrated to these Provinces along with the Bhonslas from the Bombay Presidency, had helped the Bhonslas in their Cuttuck expedition, and in recognition of their services were granted the village and land in the Balaghat District. The Powar Patel ancestors of Ladkoo as well as his family, all through, had adhered to the customs ' and laws prevailing in the Bombay Presidency and, therefore, the family is governed by the Mayukha School of Hindu Law. If this were so, there would be no question but that the defendants were entitled to retain the property in suit.

(3.) THE Subordinate Judge, after examining the evidence of various witnesses produced by the defendants on the point, held that their evidence was inconclusive towards supporting the allegation that the family could be held to be governed by the Mayukha School of Law. After referring to certain standard books of reference on the point, the Subordinate Judge came to the finding that there was no proof that the Powars, in. general, or Ladkoo's family, in particular, came from the Bombay Presidency. He held, on the contrary, that the evidence of the plaintiffs went to show that the Powars must have come from Dharanagree. In those circumstances, there was, in his opinion, no room for the application of the principle laid down in Balwant Rao v. Baji Rao A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 59 so far as the question of the present family being governed by the Mayukha School of Law is concerned, and he held that the Mitakshara tenets applied to the case.