RADHARANI Vs. BRINDARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in this case are governed by the Dayabhaga. THE appeal is brought by the plaintiffs whose suit, instituted on September 20, 1930, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca, has been dismissed by the trial Court (April 20, 1932), and by the High Court (January 17, 1936). THE plaintiffs are the mother, widow and son of Matilal Das who died on October 24, 1925, and between them they represent his estate. THEy claim that Matilal in 1918 succeeded to the whole estate of his uncle Sasi Mohan who had died unmarried on October 1, 1865. THE plaintiffs' case is simply that on the death of Sasi Mohan his mother Shyam Peary succeeded to his property for the estate of a Hindu mother, and that on her death (November 16, 1918), Matilal was the nearest reversioner to Sasi Mohan. THEy admit that, in the events which have happened, they have no need of relief as regard three-quarters of the estate left by Sasi Mohan, but they say that Brinda Rani Dasi, defendant No. 1, is in possession of and claims title to the remaining quarter. THEy seek a declaration of title and a decree for possession against her; the other defendants are joined pro forma. Brinda Rani is the only child of Radhika Mohan surviving at the date of the suit, and she represents his estate. Madhusudan Das = Shyam Peary (d. 12-4-1865) (d. 16-11-1918) : : : : : Mohini Mohan Radhika Mohan Lal Mohan Kshetra Mohan Sasi Mohan (d. 1896) (d. 1878) (d. 1885) (d. 1898) (d. 1-10-1865) : = _____ : : : = __________ = widow Priamoyee : widow Govinda (d. 1902) = Rani (d. 1920) Radharani : (plff. 1) __________________ : :: Krishna Preyashi Brindarani : : (d. 22-5-1930) (deft. 1) Matilal = Brojomohini: Sons : Sons (d. 24-10-25) |(plff. 2)defts. 2-6 defts. 7-12 Ajit KumarDas (minor)(plff.3)

(2.) THERE is little room for dispute as to the facts. Madhu Sudan Das was possessed of considerable property and a money-lending business. He died on April 12, 1865, leaving him surviving five sons of whom Sasi Mohan was the youngest. By his will dated November 24, 1855, he left his property to his sons in equal shares, and he directed that on his death his properties and business should continue to be managed and enjoyed jointly (in ejmali), the charge of the entire estate being made over to the sons as they came of age. As regards his mother and widow, he directed that the amounts that might from time to time become necessary for going to holy places and for other due and needful expenses should be supplied from his estate by all the sons in equal shares. THERE was a provision entitling each of these ladies in case of disagreement among members of the family to a separate place for her residence, and certain guardians, nominated by the will, were to fix the amount of maintenance. He declared that his widow should be absolutely entitled to her own ornaments and any cash in her possession.

(3.) ON June 26, 1878, Radhika Mohan died, leaving a widow, Govinda Rani, and two daughters ; so the widow succeeded as his heiress. Thereafter, the three surviving brothers and Govinda Rani, without dividing the properties, were possessed each of one-quarter share of the whole estate left by Madhu Sudan, until in 1881 Kshetra Mohan transferred his quarter share to his eldest brother, Mohini Mohan. In 1881, Govinda Rani sued her late husband's three brothers (suit No. 73 of 1883 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca) alleging that Kshetra Mohan's share had been purchased by Mohini Mohan on behalf of and with monies belonging to himself, Lal Mohan and Radhika's estate. ON July 9, 1885, her suit was compromised : it was decreed that Govinda Rani's share of Madhu Sudan's estate should be one-quarter, that is, that the release by Shyam Peary of her right to inherit from Sasi Mohan had vested one-quarter of Sasi Mohan's fifth in Radhika Mohan, and that Govinda Rani was liable to pay one-quarter of the monthly allowance of Rs. 150 payable to Shyam Peary; but Govinda Rani's claim to participate in the purchase of Kshetra Mohan's share was not sustained by the decree.