MILAN KUMAR DAS Vs. PURNASASHI DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been referred to the Special Bench by our learned brother B. M. Datta, J., under Chapter V, Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules. The question which arose before the learned Judge and which we are to consider is, whether in the event of a partition between the sons, the mother who has already inherited the share of a deceased son is entitled to a further share under the Hindu Law. Tn two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Jugomohan Haldar v. Sarodamoyee Dossee (1878) ILR 3 Cal 149 and Poorendra Nath Sen v. Srimati Hemangini Dassi (1909) ILR 36 Cal 75, it has been held that the mother is entitled to a share even though she has already inherited the share of a deceased son. A contrary view has been taken by S.R. Das J, has he then was) in Indu Bhusan Chatter IIV. Mritunjoy Pal ILR (1946) 1 Cal 128. Before we consider the question, the facts of the case may be stated in brief.

(2.) THE plaintiff Milan Kumar Das has instituted the suit, for partition of the properties in suit by metes and bounds and allotments of the respective shares of the parties. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table as set out in paragraph 1 of the plaint.

(3.) WE are, therefore, mainly concerned with the question whether Purnasashi is entitled to a further 1/5th share in the properties in suit, for she has already inherited the undivided 1/4th share of Siddheswar long before the institution of the suit. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, appearing for the defendant No. 1 Sm. Purnasashi Dassi submits that the question should be considered with reference to the texts of Hindu Law. He has placed before us the texts from Setler's Hindu Law on inheritance and has pressed us to consider the same in order to ascertain the true legal position. We also feel the necessity of referring to the texts of Hindu Law so as to resolve the conflict of judicial opinions on the question.