RAMASRAY PRASAD CHOUDHARY Vs. RADHIKA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit instituted by Babuyee Radhika Devi, a minor suing by her father-in-law as her next friend, for a declaration that she will be entitled to succeed to the share of her father Ramakant in the suit properties on the death of her mother Parbati and the determination of her widow's estate, on the ground that at the time of his death on December 29. 1918, Ramakant had become separated from his brother Ramasray and his nephew Bindeshwari, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The High Court at Patna reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga has decreed the suit, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have appealed.

(2.) THE following genealogical table shows the state of the family. Raghubar Chaudhry. |-----------------------------------| | Chhatardhari = Musammat Makho Bhekhdari = Musammat Chowdhry Chowdhrain. Chowdhry | Alakrupi. (died Dec., 1914) | (died 1915).|| || Baleshar Chowdhry| ----------------------------------------------------- | | |Bhagirath Prasad = Musammat Ramakant = Musammat RamasrayPrasad Chowdhry |Nunubati. Chowdhry | ParbatiChowdhry(died before 1914)| (died 29th | Chowdhrain(Defendant No. 1). | December,| (Defendant. || 1918) | No. 5). || | | Bindeshwari Prasad Babui Radhika Devi = Gobind N. Bacha Chowdhry Chowdhry (Plaintiff) Chowdhry.(Defendant No. 3).(Defendant No. 2. ) (born October, 1918).| Jinut Narain Chowdhry (Defendant No. 4).

(3.) IT is alleged in the plaint, and not denied in the written statement, that at the time of his death in 1914, Chatardhari, the plaintiff's grandfather, was living jointly with his sons, Ramakant, the plaintiff's father, and Ramasray, defendant No. 1, and Bindeshwari, defendant No. 2, who was the son of a deceased eldest son. The omission of any mention of Bhekhdari's branch of the family which was then represented by his minor son Baleshwar, suggests that Bhekhdari's branch had become divided before his death in 1915; and in the judgment of Kulwant Sahay J., with which James J. concurred, it is said to have been admitted by the defendants at the hearing of the appeal that the two branches of the family were separate. The rent collections continued to be made on behalf of both branches, until in 1918 owing to Ramasray's interference Baleshwar's mother and guardian Alakrupi claimed to have separate collections for her son's share. Ramakant took no part in this dispute which resulted in civil and criminal proceedings in the course of which Ramasray is said to have spent Rs. 30,000 in the next two years. Their Lordships have referred to this dispute at the outset because it figures largely in this case, as the Subordinate Judge has refused to act on most of the documentary evidence tendered for the plaintiff on the ground that it was fabricated in support of Alakrupi's case in this dispute; but, as already stated, it does not appear that there was then any dispute about the separation of the two branches of the family, nor has it been attempted to show that any of these documents were used in support of Alakrupi's case. In their Lordships' opinion this summary rejection of the plaintiff's documents was unwarranted, and deprives the Subordinate Judge's finding on the main issue of any weight.