Issue
Decision
Mathusri Umamba Boyi Saiba And Ors
v.
Mathusri Dipamba Boyi Saiba And Ors
(Privy Council)
| 14-11-1895
Macnaghten, J.
1. Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no ground for this application and that the appeal fails. They think that the decree of the 8th of May 1868 is in accordance with the judgment pronounced and with the practice of the Court. The judgment of the Court declares that the matter for their consideration was "the future preservation and management of the whole property with a view to the interests of all parties": the portion of the decree which is objected to was, in the opinion of their Lordships, necessary for the security and preservation of the property. There is nothing in the decree to prevent the appellants, if they think fit, applying for the discharge of the receiver and manager, and there is nothing to prevent the Court putting the senior widow living in the management of the property if the Court is satisfied that she is a fit and proper person to manage it on behalf of all the persons interested.
2. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty to dismiss the appeal.
1. Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no ground for this application and that the appeal fails. They think that the decree of the 8th of May 1868 is in accordance with the judgment pronounced and with the practice of the Court. The judgment of the Court declares that the matter for their consideration was "the future preservation and management of the whole property with a view to the interests of all parties": the portion of the decree which is objected to was, in the opinion of their Lordships, necessary for the security and preservation of the property. There is nothing in the decree to prevent the appellants, if they think fit, applying for the discharge of the receiver and manager, and there is nothing to prevent the Court putting the senior widow living in the management of the property if the Court is satisfied that she is a fit and proper person to manage it on behalf of all the persons interested.
2. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty to dismiss the appeal.
Advocates List
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
Hobhouse, Macnaghten, MorrisRichard Couch, JJ.
Eq Citation
(1896) ILR 19 Mad 120
LQ/PC/1895/23
HeadNote
Hindu Law — Inheritance and Succession — Partition — Decree for — Held, was in accordance with judgment pronounced and with practice of Court — Portion of decree objected to was, in opinion of Board, necessary for security and preservation of property — There was nothing in decree to prevent appellants, if they thought fit, applying for discharge of receiver and manager, and there was nothing to prevent Court putting senior widow living in management of property if Court was satisfied that she was fit and proper person to manage it on behalf of all persons interested — Hindu Law — Inheritance and Succession — Partition — Decree for
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
