(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 1557 OF 2005 Manjulabai w/o. Dhondiba Dhumal, Died per L.R. : Prayagabai w/o. Vithalrao Patil, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Appellant R/o. Nelwad, Taluka : Nilanga, (Original District : Latur. defendant) versus 1. Bhagabai w/o. Dhondiba Dhumal (Died) L.Rs. 2. Champabai w/o. Kishanrao Patil, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Household. 3. Balaji s/o. Kishanrao Patil, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Chandar s/o. Kishanrao Patil, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 5. Shahaji s/o. Kishanrao Patil, Age : 27 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Respondent nos.2 to 5, R/o. Bolegaon (Kh.), .. Respondents Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur. (Original plaintiffs) (2) ....................... Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate, for the appellants. Respondent no.1 dead. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 5. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, extensively. 2. Dhondiba died in 1950 leaving behind him Bhagabai and Manjulabai. There was a will deed by Bhagabai and daughter Prayagbai of Manjulabai. Bhagabai had a will deed in favour of the plaintiff Champabai. It is alleged, that Dhondiba having died in 1950, leaving behind him plaintiff and defendant Manjulabai, Manjulabai is no more. She, as stated above, is widow of Dhondiba. The two widows succeeded to the property of Dhondiba in equal proportion. (3) 3. The short controversy in the matter is, about right of Prayagbai d/o. Manjulabai. The factual matrix indicate that in the light of law in prevalence i.e. Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, could be made applicable. The said Act would not be applicable for the daughter to stake claim in the property of her mother in the light of the law prevalent to Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. 4. The provisions of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, extends to the whole of India except Part-B States (formerly outside British India and Hyderabad State governed by Nizam regime). It was obviously not made applicable till 1953. The devolution of property indicated in Section 3 of the Act of 1937 would not be applicable to the daughter. 5. During the course of submissions, it revealed that in terms of Rule 43 of Hindu Law, the specified order of succession among sapindas is, as under : " Son, grandson (son's son) and great- grandson (son's son's son), and (after 14 April 1937) widow, predeceased son's widow, and predeceased son's predeceased son's widow. " In the light of this situation, the daughter does not surface (4) for succession amongst sapindas. The law also indicate, daughters do not inherit until all the widows are dead. 6. The findings of the court, concerning share of Bhagabai and Manjulabai, to the extent of half each in the properties, having got absolute by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, disclose correct legal position. 7. In the above scenario, the Second Appeal sans merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa1557