BROJOBALA DEBI Vs. RENUKA GHOSAL
LAWS(CAL)-1983-8-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 24,1983

BROJOBALA DEBI Appellant
VERSUS
RENUKA GHOSAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal from an appellate decree. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants The subject matter of challenge Is a remand order dated december 4,1982, passed by the learned district Judge, Howrah, allowing an appeal preferred by the plaintiff, being Title Appeal no. 206 of 1982.
(2.) THE suit properties set out in the two schedules to the plaint along with other properties admittedly once belonged to behari Lal and his brothers. Behari Lal died in the year 1928, leaving behind a widow Parbatimoyee and two daughters Ushangini and Brajabala. Brajabala is defendant No. 1 and brajabala's daughter bakshmibala is defendant No. 2. After the death of Behari Lal, admittedly there was a partition between Parbatimoyee, widow of Behari Lal and the other co-sharers. Such partition was effected by a registered Deed of Partition dated August 6, 1928. By this Deed of Partition admittedly the suit properties were allotted to Parbatimoyee. Admittedly again, both Brajabala and Ushangini for self and the natural guardian of her minor son ramdas. Ghosal were made parties to this deed of Partition. Ushangini died in the year 1951. Parbatimoyee died in 1954. Before her death Parbatimoyee executed a deed of Gift in favour of Brajabala, defendant no. 1, who in her turn transferred some of the properties to her daughter lakshmibala. There were further transfers in (favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 9.
(3.) IN that background Ramdas Ghosal, son of Ushangini instituted Title Suit No. 38 of 1977 for a declaration that the purported transfer of properties by Parbatimoyee and brajabala and all subsequent transfers thereto were void, illegal fraudulent, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiff and for injunction. In seeking such a relief, the plaintiff Ramdas pleaded that by the Deed of Partition dated August 6, 1928, Parbatimoyee, Ushangini and Brajabala were only given life interest for enjoyment of the suit properties while the entire 16 as. Title thereto was given to the plaintiff subject to the life interest in favour of the said three ladies. According to the plaintiff, both parbatimoyee and Ushangini being dead, brajabala may claim only a life estate to the extent of 1/3rd share, she was not entitled to any further right by virtue of the gift from parbatimoyee, nor could she transfer any right, title and interest in the suit property on her turn in favour of her daughter lakshmibala.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.