SHRIPATRAO MADHAVRAO SHINDE Vs. PARVATIBAI GANPATRAO SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the question that arises for decision is the succession to certain lands which are governed by the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, V of 1886. The facts briefly are these. One Madhavrao Shinde was the owner of these lands. On his death they devolved upon his two sons Shripatrao who is the plaintiff and Ganpatrao. Ganpatrao died leaving his widow Parvatibai who is defendant No. 1. Ganpatrao had a son Ramehandra who died on July 22, 1921, issueless and unmarried. On April 28, 1928, Bajirao was adopted by Parvatibai, and the question is whether by reason of the adoption Bajirao, defendant No. 2, is entitled to the watan lands.

(2.) There can be no doubt that if succession was governed by the ordinary principles of Hindu law, in view of the recent decisions of the Privy Council, although on the death of Ramehandra the property would go to the next reversioner of Ganpatrao, viz. plaintiff, on the adoption of Bajirao on April 23, 1928, the property vested in the plaintiff would be divested and Bajirao would become entitled to those properties. But Mr. Walavalkar contends that the ordinary and normal rule of the Hindu law of succession cannot and should not apply to properties which are watan lands and governed by Act V of 1886. In support of his contention he first relies on a passage in the case of Anant Bhikappa Fatil V/s. Shankar Bamchandra Patil (1943) 46 Bom. L.R. 1, 4, p.c. Sir George Rankin in delivering the judgment points out that the -properties in that suit were governed by Act V of 1886 and he goes on to say that that Aet imposes -a special rule of succession whereby every female, other than the widow of the last male owner, is postponed to every male member of the watan family qualified to inherit, and Sir George Rankin adds (p. 4): No other feature special to watan property was relied on or discussed in the Courts in India or mentioned in the printed case lodged by the parties upon this appeal, and their Lordships are not called upon or prepared to consider whether upon other grounds the law applicable to watandars or watan property varies from the ordinary Hindu law.

(3.) The question, therefore, I have got to consider is whether there is any special feature in the Watan Act which would induce me to hold that the law applicable to watandars or watan property is different from the ordinary Hindu law. Section 2 of Act V of 1886, which is relied upon, is to the following effect: Every female member at a, watan family other than the widow of the last male owner, and every person Claiming through any female, shall be postponed in the order of succession to any watan, or part thereof or interest therein, devolving by inheritance after the date when this Act comes into force to every male member of the family qualified to inherit such watan, or part thereof or interest therein.