Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to ownership rights of females in the property. 
• This judgment was delivered by Bombay High Court. 

Facts 

• In 1868, Bapuji died, leaving two properties (mouzahs) called Chikni and Bidhi in the Wardha district. 
• His daughter Saraswati inherited these properties and later sold various portions of them to different people. 
• When Saraswati died in 1889, her three sons challenged these sales. 
• Saraswati was from a Maharashtra Brahmin family that had migrated to the Central Provinces. 
• The learned District Judge found that she had an absolute interest; but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner reversed his decree. 
• Hence, the matter was before the High Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether Saraswati had absolute ownership rights over the inherited properties from her father, or only a limited interest similar to a Hindu widow's rights?

Observation

• The Court established that inheritance law follows a person's personal law, not just the local law of where they live. When families migrate, they carry their personal law with them unless they explicitly renounce it. 
• The Court held that in the present facts since Bapuji was a Maharashtra Brahmin the following facts would apply on him: 
  • His family was subject to Bombay law 
  • There was no evidence he had renounced this law 
  • Under Bombay law, daughters inherit absolute property rights from their fathers 
• The Court rejected the argument that the law should be determined based on whether Bapuji lived in Berar or Central Provinces, saying this approach was incorrect. 
• The Court clarified that the Bombay interpretation (giving daughters absolute rights) was based on the Mayukha commentary on Hindu law, which was historically followed in Western India. 
• Thus, following conclusions were drawn by the Court: 
  • The Court ruled in favor of Saraswati's absolute ownership rights 
  • This meant that the sale of properties by Saraswati were valid. 
  • The Appeals by her sons were hence dismissed. 
• Hence, the decision of the original District Judge was restored and it was held that Saraswati had absolute ownership rights. 

Conclusion 

• This case became important for establishing that personal law follows a family when they migrate, unless they explicitly choose to follow local customs instead.