SANKARIBALA DUTTA Vs. ASITA BARANI DASI
LAWS(CAL)-1976-8-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on August 20,1976

SANKARIBALA DUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
ASITA BARANI DASI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MONIRAM V. KERI KALITANI [REFERRED TO]
PARAMI V. MAHADEVI [REFERRED TO]
BALLABHA PANI V. JASODHARA PANI [REFERRED TO]
THANGAVELU ASARI VS. LAKSHMI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG NARAYAN SALUNKE VS. SINDHU [REFERRED TO]
BHURI BAI VS. CHAMPI BAI [REFERRED TO]
LAKHMI CHAND VS. MT ANANDI [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AMMAL AND ORS. VS. THANGAVEL ASARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DEVAKKA VS. VEERAPPA VIRBASAPPA PALLED [LAWS(KAR)-1985-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
Devakka VS. Veerappa Virbasappa Palled [LAWS(KAR)-1985-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sen, J. - (1.)This appeal from original decree arises out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The said suit being Title Suit No. 65 of 1966 having been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge Birbhum, by the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1968, the plaintiff No. 2, Sankari Bala has preferred the present appeal.
(2.)The suit was originally instituted by the appellant and her mother Rash Bilasini Chandra and the latter having died pending the suit and her right, title and interest having devolved on plaintiff No. 2, the appellant, she herself proceeded with the suit. Their case shortly was that Rash Bilasini was the first wife of Nafar Chandra Chandra and plaintiff No 2 Sankari Bala is the daughter of Nafar by Rash Bilasini the first wife. The only son born of Rash Bilasini having died at the age of 5 or 6 years, Nafar married for the second time the defendant No. 1 Asita Barani Chandra when Nafar could have no more son by the plaintiff No. 1 Rash Bilasini. After his marriage with defendant No. 1, Asita Barani, Nafar executed a registered deed of maintenance granting a life estate to defendant No. 1 in respect of certain properties which are set out in Schedule "A" to the plaint. The defendant No. 1 has no power of alienation in respect of the properties so gifted to her in life estate in lieu of maintenance. Nafar died intestate on 12th Kartick, 1369 B. S. corresponding to October 29, 1962. He had, however, no issue by defendant No. 1 surviving him and on his death the properties left by him were inherited by his daughter plaintiff No. 2 in 8 annas and the surviving widows Rash Bilasini, plaintiff No. 1 and Asita Barani, defendant No. 1 in 4 annas each. A partition was effected between the parties on February 14, 1963, in respect of the properties left behind by Nafar and the properties set out in Schedule B to the plaint were allotted to defendant No. 1 Asita Barani on such partition. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 Asita Barani remarried one Dulal Bagdi, defendant No. 2 who happened to be a servant of Nafar, in the latter part of the year 1371 B. S. On such re-marriage defendant No. 1 had a son by the said Dulal Bagdi, defendant No. 2 and since such remarriage they have been living as husband and wife at the house of defendant No. 2 a few furlongs away from the residential house of Nafar. The plaintiffs claimed that by such remarriage the defendant No 1 Asita Barani forfeited all her right, title and interest in the properties of both the Schedules "A" and "B" and such properties therefore, reverted to the plaintiffs, the surviving heirs and legal representatives of Nafar. It was further pleaded that after her remarriage, defendant No. 1 executed a deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of some of the "B" Schedule properties and between defendants 1 and 2 several transfers were made to defendants 3 to 7 in respect of one or more of the properties of the B Schedule. Such transfers, it was claimed, were neither lawful nor bona fide and the transferees acquired no right to those properties as the transferor was divested of such properties prior to such transfers. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for declaration of their title in respect of the properties of both the Schedules and recovery of possession thereof by evicting the defendants therefrom. They further prayed for a decree for mesne profits as against the defendants.
(3.)The suit was contested principally by defendants 1 and 2 who filed a joint written statement. They took a bold defence that though they were living together and had a son because of illicit relation between them, they were never married, far less in the manner stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint. Their case on the other hand, was that the plaintiff No. 2 Sankari Bala and her husband Nemai Dutta who are well to do could not accept the position that Asita Barani should inherit any property from her husband. An attempt was made to coerce the defendant No. 1 Asita Barani to concede acceptance of life interest only which she resisted and that led to the partition on February 14, 1963. But even after the partition the plaintiff No. 2 and her sons tortured Asita Barani while she was living in her husband's residential home in the demarcated portion allotted to her by the partition. She was tortured, so much so, that she had to leave her husband's home. At first she took shelter in the house of one Nisith Dutta when she became apprehensive of her life but the said Nishith. who later appeared to be a man of the camp of the plaintiffs, betrayed her and misappropriated her movable properties. At that stage she Left the shelter of Nisith and came to live with defendant No. 2 at first at Suri and then at his house. As for the gift in favour of defendant No. 2 is concerned, it was pleaded that it was effected in order to fulfil the pious desire of the deceased Nafar who being satisfied with the service rendered by defendant No. 2 had desired that his heirs and legal representatives would give some properties to him. In the written statement it was claimed that defendant No. 1 could not have forfeited her rights to the properties in either of the two Schedules and the transfers effected to the other different defendants were claimed to be lawful and bona fide.
;


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