9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Sm. Nandarani Debi to a share in the property under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act. 2. Claim of Defendants 2 to 5 (sons of the predeceased son Sudhir) to any share in the stridhan property of Sm. Sushila Devi. 3. Maintainability of the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement of Sm. Nandarani Debi to a Share in the Property: The primary issue was whether Sm. Nandarani Debi, as the widow of a predeceased son, is entitled to a share in the property under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act. The Plaintiff argued that the Act does not apply to stridhan property of a Hindu woman. The court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Section 3 and its provisos, and concluded that the Act was intended to affect property in respect of which a Hindu male died intestate. The court reasoned that the specific reference to "his widow" in Section 3(7) indicates that the statute was designed for the estate of a Hindu male. Consequently, the court held that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act does not apply to the devolution or succession of "anwadheyaka" stridhan property left by a Hindu female governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. 2. Claim of Defendants 2 to 5 to Any Share in the Stridhan Property: The court addressed whether the sons of the predeceased son (Defendants 2 to 5) could claim any interest in the stridhan property of Sm. Sushila Devi along with her surviving sons. Under the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, the order of succession to "anwadheyaka" stridhan property prioritizes sons over grandsons. The court noted that the stridhan heirs of Sushila would ordinarily be her sons, and since the Plaintiff and Defendant Nandalal were living at the time of her death, they should inherit in preference to the sons of the predeceased son, Sudhir. The court found no support in the Dayabhaga texts for the proposition that grandsons by a predeceased son can share simultaneously with the sons in the stridhan property of their grandmother. Hence, the court concluded that the claim of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nandalal must be upheld against that of Defendants 2 to 5. 3. Maintainability of the Suit: The issue of maintainability was initially raised by Mr. Das, arguing that the sixth Defendant was not supporting the Plaintiff. However, subsequent events showed that the sixth Defendant ultimately gave evidence in support of the Plaintiff. The court noted that the sixth Defendant refused to join the Plaintiff in the suit due to the costs of the litigation. After the sixth Defendant's testimony, Mr. Das abandoned this issue. Therefore, the court found the suit to be maintainable. Conclusion: The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, granting possession of the disputed property jointly to the Plaintiff and the sixth Defendant against Defendants 1 to 5. The court declined to award mesne profits due to the lack of evidence and made no order for costs, considering the legal complexity and the lack of candor from both the Plaintiff and the sixth Defendant. Defendants 1 to 5 were given time until February 7, 1951, to vacate the premises.
|
