MANIBHAI KAMESHWAR Vs. SHANKARLAL KAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant and the plaintiff-respondent are the sons of one Kameshwar, who left a will assigning two different houses to the present parties. The only question argued in appeal is whether Kameshwar could not make a will in respect of this property, because this property was ancestral property in the sense in which that term is used in Hindu law or whether it was absolute property which he could dispose of by will.

(2.) The property in question originally belonged to one Mayaram whose daughter Bai Parsan was the mother of Kameshwar. On the death of Mayaram it descended to Parsan and on her death, to Kameshwar, father of the present parties.

(3.) It was argued for the appellant that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Raja Chelikani Venkayyama Garu V/s. Raja Chelikani Vmkataramanayyamma (1902) L.R. 29 I.A. 156 : S.C. 4 Bom. L.R. 657 property inherited from the maternal grandfather must be held to be ancestral property, as was held by the Madras High Court in Karuppai Nachiar V/s. Sankaranarayanan Chetty (1903) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 300, 312, 340 and Vythinaiha Ayyar V/s. Yeggia Narayana Ayyar (1903) I.L.R. 27 Mad. 382, and that the contrary view in Jamna Prasad V/s. Ram Partap (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 667, and to a certain extent in Rao Bahadur Man Singh V/s. Maharani Nawlakhhati (1923) I.L.R. 2 Pat. 607, 611, 640 was not correct. The trial Court held that it was not ancestral property and that he was entitled to make a will. The District Court saw no reason to differ.