KAMLA DEVI Vs. BACHULAL QUPTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the High court of Calcutta, dated 6/04/1950, by which the said High court affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Asansol dated J 30/06/1943, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1942. The suit was instituted by the four sons of one Ram Kishori Lal Sao, a resident of Asansol in Bengal, who died in September 1927. One of the plaintiffs, Kalicharan, died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on the record as plaintiffs in his stead. The defendants were Sumitra Devi, widow of the late Ram Kishori Lal, (defendant No. 1) and Kamala Devi, daughter of the late Ram Kishori Lal (defendant -No. 2). The said defendants, 1 and 2, are the appellants before us.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs -respondents was that the marriage negotiations took place at Asansol and did not contain any promise of the gift of four houses as marriage dowry. THE plaintiffs -respondents alleged that the arrangements were that ornaments worth about Rs. 5,000.00 were to be given to Kamala Devi, a sum of Rs. 800.00 was to be paid as travelling expenses of the bridegroom's party, and gifts of some moveable properties were to be made out of the balance of the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 which was set apart for the marriage expenses of Kamala Devi. THE plaintiffs -respondents denied that there was any ante -nuptial promise of a gift of four houses as marriage dowry or that there was any 'sankalpa' at the time of marriage or any confirmation of the gift at the Dwiragaman ceremony. THEy alleged that Sumitra Devi, under the evil advice of her father and son -in -law -and to deprive the plaintiffs -respondents of their right, made a gift of the four houses at Asansol in favour of Kamala Devi on the 10/03/1940, a gift which she was not competent under the law to make. It was alleged that the gift was collusive, fraudulent and without consideration; and in any event, it could not be operative beyond the lifetime of Sumitra Devi and was not binding on the reversion, as she had only a life interest in the corpus of the property and there was no justifying legal necessity for the alienation made by her. It wag also alleged that Sumitra Devi was not legally competent to make a gift, as marriage dowry of her daughter, of such a big and unreasonable portion of the estate left by her husband.