Report No. 83
6.13. English law.-
Position under earlier legislation may be uealt with. In Soobane Singh v. Juggeshur Koer, 13 CLR 86 (Cal). See Sham Kuar v. Mohanunda, 1892 ILR 19 Cal 301 (307), the High Court of Calcutta observed:-
"It is not clear that under Act XXXV of 1858 (the Bengal Minors Act) a manager under no circumstances could be appointed if a lunatic be a member of a joint Hindu family under the Mitakarsha law possessed of no separate property."
In Bhoopendra Narain Roy v. Greesh Narain Roy, 1878 ILR 6 Cal 539, Pointfex, J., said, with reference to this Act (the Bengal Minors Act 35 of 1858):-
"It appears to us that there may be cases where it is essentially necessary that a guardian should be appointed for a member of a Mitakarsha family as much as for any other family."
Under the Bombay Minors Act of 1864 (20 of 1864), which was similar in its provisions to Act 40 of 1858, the Bombay High Court had held, apparently on the authority of the Privy Council case of Durgapersad v. Keshopersad Singh, 1881 ILR 8 Cal 656: LR 5 IA 27 (PC), that a certificate of administration may be granted for the share of a minor who was a member of an undivided Hindu family;1 and the Allahabad High Court2 held that under Act 40 of 1858 a certificate may be granted in the lifetime of the father.
1. Babaji v. Sheshgiri, ILR 6 Born 593.
2. Dhiraj Koer v. Adjoodliya Bux Singh, 3 MWP (All) 91, cited in Sham Kuar v. Mohanunda, 1892 ILR 19 Cal 301 (303).