NILMONI DASSI Vs. PASHUPATI BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Plaintiff-Appellant arises out of a suit for declaration that the order of the Additional District Judge under reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act directing that the award money should be kept in deposit in the Postal Savings Bank as the Appellant had only life interest in it and as such, was entitled to draw the interest only of this award money. The Plaintiff's case is that the Plaintiff has become absolute owner of the property as well as the award money by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act. The disputed property described in the kha schedule belonged to her husband Tinkari Biswas on whose death their son Gobinda inherited the property. Gobinda died in Bhadra 1345 B.S. leaving his mother Nilmoni as his sole heir. She thus inherited the property and began to possess it. For legal necessity she sold the property to one Dwijapada Pal by a kobala dated April 18, 1939, for Rs. 299 on condition of reconveyance if she could repay the consideration money. On August 19, 1943, Nilmoni purchased the property from Dwijapada Pal in the benami of her brother Narayan Chandra Pal. It is stated that Nilmoni has been in possession all throughout. The property was acquired by the Government and compensation money was awarded in the name of Narayan Pal in whose name the kobala stood. The Respondent No. 1, reversioner of Tinkari, filed objection against the award wherein the learned District Judge disposed of the case holding, inter alia, that Narayan Pal was a benamdar of Nilmoni. Nilmoni had only life interest in the award money and that she would be entitled to withdraw the interest of the award money whereupon the Plaintiff filed the present suit for the declaration as stated above. The Respondent No. 1 alone contested the suit. The case of the Defendant was that the sale to Dwijapada was a fictitious one. The property was not repurchased in the benami of Narayan Pal. The Appellant had only limited interest in the property and as such, she has no locus standi to challenge the order of the learned District Judge. The learned Munsif held that the transfer of the property by Nilmoni to Dwijapada was not for legal necessity and that Nilmoni purchased in the benami of Narayan Pal from Dwijapada. The learned Munsif further held that the acquisition took place long before the Hindu Succession Act came into operation and as such, she could not claim absolute ownership in the disputed property on the basis of the Hindu Succession Act. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the finding of the learned Munsif that the Appellant had only limited interest in the property and there was no legal necessity for the sale of the property to Dwijajpada and the repurchase was on her account in the name of Narayan Pal. It is also stated that she had all along possessed the property and the compensation was awarded in favour of Narayan Pal who was a benamdar. Narayan Pal had only a limited interest in the property and as such, she can only get the interest in the property out of the award money. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Plaintiff-Appellant preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Two points arise in this case, firstly, whether Nilmoni's limited interest ripened into absolute right after the Hindu Succession Act came into force and secondly, whether the award will be a bar in this proceeding on the ground of principle of res judicata. If it is found that the Plaintiff-Appellant has an absolute interest in the property then she will be entitled to withdraw the award money as off right, otherwise she is entitled to the interest and the award will revert back to the reversioner, that is the Defendant, after the death of Nilmoni.

(3.) Mr. Acharya, however, contended that the Plaintiff has pot the property on the basis of an instrument, that is, the transfer from Dwijapada to Narayan Pal whose purchase was as a benamdar of the Plaintiff and therefore, Section 14(1) of the Act has no application in the present case. Therefore, the Plaintiff was only limited owner in respect of the property acquired by the Government. Under Section 14(2) of the Act it must be held according to Mr. Acharya that Nilmoni got her interest on the basis of an instrument occurring in the said section and therefore, Section 14(1) has no application. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act runs as follows: