AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.—In this case two points have been argued. First, that the suit is barred by limitation, and, secondly, that the defendant was entitled as an heir of Vithoji in preference to the plaintiffs. This latter point does not appear to have been argued in the District Court possibly because it was thought to be a hopeless point. The authorities are all against the defendant''s contention, dating from the case of Nissar Mitrtojah v. Kowar Dhunwunt Roy (1863) 1 Marsh 609 up to that of Shome Shankar Rajendra Varere v. Rajesar Swami Jangam ILR (1898) All. 99 and Ramlinga Muppan v. Pavadai Goundan ILR (1901) Mad. 519. The contention is also opposed to the opinion expressed by the learned authors of West and Buhler''s Hindu Law at page 83. There is no caste custom proved in this case to support the defendant''s contention. (See also Mitakshara, Chap, I, Section II, placitum 31).
With regard to the point of limitation, we agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge. The plaintiffs'' right to sue for a declaration would not accrue until the death of Reubai, whose existence at any time between the death of Ganpati and her own death would have defeated the suit for a declaration by the plaintiffs, on the ground that she had vested right as the nearest heir of the last Vatandar.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.