KRISHNA PANDA Vs. JHORA CHODHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 5 who are transferees from one Narasingho and who are aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Judge by which he allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and passed a decree in her favour that she should recover joint possession to the extent of 8 annas in the property along with the appellants. The facts are these: One Krishna Chowdhury died leaving a widow, Mt. Haddi, and a mother, Mt. Savitri. He had two sons Narasingho, already mentioned and Beero. The plaintiff is the widow of Beero who died in 192S. On 12 August 1922 by a registered partition deed the two sons of Krishna Chowdhury divided the c property left by their father and in that partition provision was made that Mt. Haddi will femain in possession of Ga properties and Mt. Savitri will remain in possession of the Gha properties.

(2.) These two ladies were to enjoy the property during their life-time only, the government revenue and other public demands were to be borne by the two sons. It was also provided that after their death the two sons would share these properties equally. Mt. Haddi is said to have incurred a civil death by renouncing the world in 1928 or 1929 or thereabout. Accordingly the plaintiff prayed that she was entitled to the entire property left by Mt. Haddi because she had renounced schedule Ga properties in her favour. The suit was instituted on 1 October 1937 to recover possession of the entire properties which were then in possession of the transferees from defendant 4, i.e., Narasingho. It is unnecessary to state the defence beyond pointing out that the defendants challenged that defendant 3, Mt. Haddi, was civilly dead and also that the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in that property because upon the terms of the partition deed it descended to defendant 4 as the heir of his father then living. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 5 only.

(3.) The learned Munsif did not accept the case of the plaintiff that Mt. Haddi was civilly dead or that under the Hindu law Mt. Haddi had any power to give the property to anybody other than the next reversioner. Accordingly he dismissed the suit.