VIMLA BAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus HIRALAL GUPTA AND ORS.

VIMLA BAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus HIRALAL GUPTA AND ORS.

Plaintiff and her family carried with them to Indore their personal law, namely Bombay School of Hindu Law under which female bandhu is an heir. Migration from Bombay Province to Indore did not change their personal law, since migration from Mathura was not proven by evidence. The plaintiff being the only nearest...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Vimla Bai (Dead) by LRs.; Respondent: Hiralal Gupta and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 December 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree of High Court set aside; decree of trial court restored as to House No. 88
Legal Topics
Succession, Personal Law, Migration, Evidence Admissibility
Hindu Law Succession Personal Law Migration Evidence Admissibility

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vimla Bai (Dead) by LRs.

Appellant

Hiralal Gupta and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is governed by Bombay School or Banaras School of Hindu Law for purposes of succession
  2. 2 Whether migration can be presumed or must be proven by evidence
  3. 3 Whether female bandhu is an heir under Bombay School of Hindu Law

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff and her family carried with them to Indore their personal law, namely Bombay School of Hindu Law under which female bandhu is an heir. Migration from Bombay Province to Indore did not change their personal law, since migration from Mathura was not proven by evidence. The plaintiff being the only nearest bandhu of Rakhmaji is entitled to succeed to his estate and possess the house in question.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree of High Court set aside; decree of trial court restored as to House No. 88

Orders

  • Plaintiff is entitled to possession of House No. 88 with mesne profits from respondents.
  • Mortgagee respondent not entitled to equities against plaintiff; may pursue remedies against mortgagor.