ANNAGOUDA NATHGOUDA PATIL versus COURT OF WARDS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 17-12-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

19'! 
Dec. 17. 
208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ANNAGOUDA NATHGOUDA PATIL 
ti. 
COURT OF WARDS AND ANOTHER 
[PATANJALI SAsTRI C. J., MuKHERJEA, DAs 
and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 
[1952] 
Hindu Law-Inheritance-Succession to property of female-
Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (II of 1929)-Applica-
bility-Rights of sister's s<>ns-Pr<>perty of maiden-Order of succes-
non. 
The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act (Act II of 1929) 
which introduced 
the son's daughter, 
daughter's daughter, 
sister 
and sister's son between the grandfather and the paternal uncle in 
the order of succession applies only to the separate property of 
a Hindu male who dies intestate. 
It does not alter the law as 
regasds the devolution of any 
kind of property owned 
by a 
Hindu male and does not purport to regulate succession to the 
property of a Hindu female at all. 
The Act cannot therefore be 
invoked to determine the heirs of a Hindu female in respect of 
her stridhan property. 
The property of a Hindu female who dies as a maiden goes in 
the first place to her uterine brothers, then to the mother and 
then to the father, and on failure of the mother and father, it 
goes to the nearest relations, that is to say, to the sapindas of 
the father and in their default the sapindas of the mother, both 
in the order of propinquity. 
Under the Mitakshara law of succession as well as the Mayukha 
law the paternal uncle's son is entitled to succeed to the pro. 
pcrty of a Hindu in preference to sister's sons. 
MandiJ Mahalakshmamma v. Mantravadi (LL.R. 1947 Mad. 23), 
Shak_untala Bai v. Court <>f Wards 
(LL.R. 194Z 
Nag. 629), 
Taluk_rai Kaur v. Bacha Kaur (LL.R. 26 Pat. 
150)~ Kuppuswami 
v. Manick_asari (A.LR. 1950 Mad. 196) 
approved. 
Shamrao v. 
Raghunandan (LL.R. 1939 Bom. 228), Mst. Charjo. v. Dinanath 
(A.LR. 1937 Lah. 196), Kehar Singh v. Attar Singh (A.LR. 1944 
Lah. 1142), Indra Pal v. Humangi Devi (LL.R. 1949 All. 816) not 
approved. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRisn1cnoN : Civil Appeal 
No. 
115 of 1950. 
Appeal from the Judgment 
and 
Decree 
of 
the 
Bombay High Court (Macklin and Rajadhyaksha JJ.) 
dated 14th March, 1945, in First Appeal No. 274 of 
1941 which arose out of a decree dated 15th March, 
\ 
-
S.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
200 
1941, of the First Class Subordinate Judge 
·in Civil Suit No. 890 of 1938; 
of Satara 
19Sl 
G. R. Madbhavi (K. R. Bergen, with him) 
appellant. 
Annagoulll 
for the Nathgouda Patil 
H. ]. Umrigar for respondent No. 1. 
v. 
Court of Wards 
and Another. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India 
(K. G. 
Muk_herje11 ]. 
Datar, with him) for respondent No. 2. 
1951. December 17. 
The Judgment of 
the 
Court 
, was delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J.-This 
appeal 
is 
directed against a 
judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bom-
bay High Court dated the 14th of March, 1945, which 
affirmed, on appeal, the decision of the 
First 
Class 
Subordinate Judge, Satara, passed in Civil Suit No. 890 
of 1938. 
The appellants before 
us filed the suit as 
plaintiffs in the original court, for establishment 
of 
their title to the property in dispute which is known 
as. Chikurde Estate, on the allegation that they were, 
under the Hindu Law, the nearest heirs of one Bhima-
. bai, who was admittedly the last holder 
of 
the estate. 
The suit was brought initially against one defendant, 
namely, the Court of Wards Satara, 
and 
admittedly 
the Court of Wards tookJ possession of the property of 
Bhimabai, while she was alive, and 
is 
continuing in 
possession of the same even now after her death. Later 
on, defendants 2, 3 and 4, who put forward rival claims 
of succession to the estate, were allowed 
to intervene 
in the suit and were added as parties-defendants. The 
Court of Ward11, which now figures as defendant No. 1, 
took up, all through, a neutral attitude and expressed 
its willingness to · hand over the estate to any person 
who 
would be declared 
to be 
rightfully 
entitled 
to it by the Court. 
The Courts 
below have nega-
tived the claims of defendants 2 
and 
3 
and 
they 
have not 
come 
up to 
press 
their claims in the 
'appeal 
before us. 
The two rival claimants, 
who 
are now 
on the 
scene, are the plaintiffs 
on one 
side 
and defendant No. 4 on the other, and the 
. whole controversy in this 
appeal 
centres 
round the 
( 
1951 
'Annagouda 
Nat/igouda Patil 
v. 
Court of Wards 
and dnother. 
Mukherjea /. 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
. point as to who amongst them 
hav'e 
the prefer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.