SAMBHU CHARAN SAHA Vs. INDU BALA SAHA
LAWS(CAL)-1976-7-30
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 19,1976

Sambhu Charan Saha Appellant
VERSUS
Indu Bala Saha Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RANGASWAMI NAICKER V/S. CHINNAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
SUKH RAM VS. GAURI SHANKAR [REFERRED TO]
SETHBADRI PRASAD VS. KANSO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SASADHAR CHANDRA DAY VS. TARA SUNDARI DASI [REFERRED TO]
LALCHAND BHUR VS. SUSHILA SUNDARI DASSI [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATHPURI GURU KAMALESHWARPURI VS. GODABAI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. - (1.)The Plaintiff -Appellant, Sambhu Charan Saha and his brother late Bhagabati Charan Saha were sons of late Harigopal Saha and it is admitted that originally each had half share in the suit property. In March 1950, Bhagabati Charan died leaving his widow, Indu Bala Saha, the Defendant -Respondent. Sambhu Charan brought Suit No. 489 of 1951 against Indu Bala in the High Court at Calcutta in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, inter alia, for declaration, for possession and for injunction etc. On May 18, 1951 the said suit was decreed in Terms of Settlement set forth and annexed to the decree passed in the said suit.
(2.)Sambhu Charan had filed Title Suit No. 95 of 1968 against Sm. Indu Bala as the principal Defendant inter alia for declaration that Indu Bala had life interest in the property described in the schedule to the plaint without any power of alienation or any other right over the same. He, further, prayed that the relevant settlement records be declared as erroneous and a permanent injunction be granted restraining her from alienating or in cumbering the suit property. The Defendant contested the said suit inter alia claiming that she had become the absolute owner of the half share of the suit property in terms of Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, the Plaintiff had no cause of action.
(3.)The learned Munsif, Second Court, Chandannagar, dismissed the suit brought by Sambhu Charan. The learned District Judge, Hooghly, dismissed the appeal preferred by him. Hence this Second Appeal. Both Courts held that by operation of Sec. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Indu Bala was now the absolute owner of the suit property and the Plaintiff was not entitled to it.
;


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