BHAGWAN VITHOBA Vs. WARUBAI BABURAO MUDKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of Hindu law in this appeal is. what is the exact place of the uterine sister of a deceased Hindu in the line of heirs, according to the Mitakshara, and whether in those parts of this Presidency, where that authority prevails over the Vyavahara Mayukha, the sister must be preferred to a half brother's son as heir of the propositus.

(2.) The District Judge of Sholapur, whence this case comes, has held on the latter part of the question in favour of the sister, on the authority of Rudrap V/s. Irava (1903) I.L.R. 28 Bom. 82. But that ruling is not decisive of the question which arises here. The competition there was between a sister and a brother's widow, whereas in the present case it is between the former and a half brother's son. That decision has no bearing, for the purposes of the present case, beyond repeating what had been already settled before, by a long series of decisions of this Court, that the sister of a deceased Hindu in this Presidency is in the line of heirs, whether according to the Mitakshara or the Mayukha.

(3.) It is urged before us by the learned pleader for the respondent in support of the decision in appeal that, under the Mitakshara as interpreted by Nanda Pandita and by Balambhatta, the term brothers in the compact series of heirs given in Yajnyavalkya's text relating to obstructed succession includes sisters; that the said interpretation has been held to be the law for this Presidency by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Vinayek Anandrav v. Luxumeebaee (1900)I.L.R. 24 Bom. 563 ; by the late Supreme Court of Bombay m that same case (1861) 1 B.H.C.R. 117; and by this Court in Sakharam Sadashiv Adhikari V/s. Sitabai (1879) I.L.R. 3 Bom. 358, and in Kesserbai V/s. Valab Raoji (1879) I.L.R. 4 Bom. 188.