CHANDRAKANTO GOSWAMI Vs. RAM MOHINI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this partition appeal the principal question is whether the parties, who are Hindus, are governed by the Dayabhaga or by the Mitakshara law. The learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the defence contention and applied the Mitakshara law, reducing the plaintiff's claim of share from 6 annas to 4 annas and the plaintiff's present appeal which is from the preliminary decree for partition, made on that footing, is mainly directed against that finding.

(2.) The genealogy is admitted except on one vital particular which we shall presently state. According to the common case of both the parties they are descended from a common ancestor Jadablal Goswami. Jadablal had two sons Anandalal and Brojolal. The plaintiff claims through Brojolal, he being the latter's grandson by his elder son Sunday. The defendants represented the branch of Anandalal and also that of the other son Bonwari of Sundar. So far as genealogy is concerned, the only difference between the parties lies in the fact that, according to the plaintiff, Brojolal had two sons Sundar and Uday, the former being the father of Bonwari and the plaintiff Chandra Kanta, as stated above, and the latter (Uday) being his (Sundar's) younger brother who died leaving a widow Rajabala, while, according to the defence, this Uday and, necessarily Rajabala also, had no existence, Brojolal having an only son Sundar who was the father of Bonwari and the plaintiff.

(3.) For convenience of reference and appreciation of the true position, we set out below the plaint genealogy, which runs as follows : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_577_AIR(CAL)_1956Image1.jpg</IMG> with only this remark that the defence accepts the same, barring Uday and Rajabala whose existence is denied by the main contesting defendant (defendant 2), and barring also the plaintiff's allegation that Bonwari predeceased Rajabala.