KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The pltf. Sri Devi is the widow of Dr. Parshottam Das who died on 29-6-1940. On 5-10-1940, the pltf. & Ch. Prag Das executed a lease in favour of Hirdey Ram & Hanuman Prasad for constructing certain building & factoriea. A nazrana of Rs. 600 was received & the annual rent reserved was Rs. 165. Ch. Prag Das, however, did not pay to the pltf. her share of the annual rent & the pltf. filed a suit on 11-9-1944, for recovery of three year, rent at the rate of Rs. 82-8-0 per year, payable in October 1941, October 1942, October 1943. The total claim was for Rs. 270.

(2.) The suit was contested on the ground that the property included in the lease was the joint family property on which the name of the pltf. was entered merely for her consolation & her name was entered in the lease also for the same reason. It was further pleaded that the pltf. had no right to bring the suit for profits for one item only & the suit was, therefore, not maintainable The first Ct. came to the conclusion that Dr. Parshottam Das & Prag Das were members of a joint Hindu family, but under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, XVIII [18] of 1937, read with the U. P. Act xi [11] of 1942, the widow had the same interest in the property as her husband had. The trial Ct. however, held that the pltf. should have filed a suit for partition of the entire property & dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Ct. did not go into the question whether Dr. Parshottam Das & Prag Das were members of a joint Hindu family or were separate. it affirmed the decision of the learned Munsif that the widow had the same interest in the property as Dr. Parshottam Das had by reason of the Acts mentioned above. The lower appellate Ct., then went on to hold that whether Dr. Parshottam Das was or was not joint with Prag Das, the widow had separated from Prag Das & that it was, therefore, no longer necessary for her to bring a suit for partition of the entire property. The result was that the suit was decreed.

(3.) In second appeal learned counsel for the deft, raised only two points. His first contention was that the pltf. bad no interest as the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, XVIII [18] of 1937, did not apply to agricultural land. He relied on the opinion of the P. C. on a reference made by His Excellency the Governor General Under Section 213, Govt. of India Act (In re the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937), A. I. R. (28) 1941 F. C. B. 72 : (l.L.R. (1941) Kar. P. C. 148); The only other point raised by learned counsel was that the pltf. had no right to claim her share only in a single item of the family property. Both these contentions were repelled by a learned single Judge of this Ct. & the appeal failed.