TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1889 (8) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd defendant No. 4 her pleader appointed to conduct, that case; that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in collusion with defendant No. 3, caused a petition of compromise to be filed in that case on behalf of the plaintiff without her knowledge and consent; and that the plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit to recover maintenance for nine months and to set aside the compromise. The defence of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (which is the only defence necessary to consider now) was to the effect that the compromise in question was not fraudulent, but had been duly entered into with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, and that she thereby consented to take ₹ 30 in full satisfaction of her claim for maintenance; and that the plaintiff com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat contention. 5. In Khettramani's case 2 B.L.R. A.C. 15 : 9 W.R. 413 : 10 W.R.F.B. 89 Sir Barnes Peacock observes: "The obligation of an heir to provide, out of the estate which descends to him, maintenance for certain persons whom the ancestor was legally or morally bound to maintain, is a legal as well as a moral obligation, for the estate is inherited subject to the obligation of providing such maintenance." And the reason why what was only a moral obligation in "the ancestor, becomes transformed into a legal obligation in the heir, is pointed out in the following passage in the same judgment: "The maintenance of a widow being a moral obligation on the late proprietor, the son who inherits takes the estate, not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doubt require consideration, and I shall examine them separately. 7. As to the first objection: no doubt the remark of the learned Judges in Khettramani's case 2 B.L.R. A.C. 15 : 9 W.R. 413 : 10 W.R. F.B. 89 is an obiter dictum; but the proposition laid down has ample basis in the Hindu law, especially of the Bengal School which governs this case.-See Dayabhaga, Chap. XI, Section VI, para. 13. It is quite true that in the practical application of the principle embodied in the dictum to any particular case it will have to be determined whether the party claiming maintenance from the heir is one whom the late proprietor was morally bound to maintain; and that it is difficult to lay down any general rule for the determination of this last....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance, and, if so, at what rate," is very general in its terms; but the objection that was really raised before the lower Appellate Court was that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintenance, being only a deceased brother's widow, and there being no ancestral Immovable property in the hands of the surviving brothers; and the lower Appellate Court has allowed that objection holding that defendants were not shown to have inherited any Immovable property. Now that view of the law is clearly wrong. It does not matter whether the property inherited is moveable or immovable. 9. As however the case will have to go back to the lower Appellate Court to ascertain the amount of maintenance, I shall leave ....