BIBHABATI DEVI Vs. DHARA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a sequel to the famous Bhowal Sanyasi Case which will also be referred to herein as the Bhowal Case.

(2.) The Plaintiff in that case who succeeded in establishing his identity before the courts of law as Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy, the second Kumar of Bhowal, married the Plaintiff of the present suit, Sm. Dhara Devi on August 14, 1942. The Defendant Bibhabati was admittedly married to the Bhowal Second Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy in the year 1902.

(3.) In 1909 the Kumar went to Darjeeling and there after a brief illness he was pronounced to be dead by the doctors and his body was taken to the cremation ground for purposes of cremation. This much is admitted but there was acute controversy as to what happened thereafter. One throughout persisted was that the Kumar's dead body was duly burnt. The other which is the present Plaintiffs version and which was also the version of the Plaintiff in the Bhowal Sannyasi case and which was accepted by the courts there was that the Kumar came back to life through some mysterious process at the hands of certain Sannyasis who took him with them and what was actually cremated on the occasion was a substitute body. According to this version, the Kumar, so brought back to life by the Sannasis, remained a wanderer with them for several years until about the year 1920 when he made his reappearance at Dacca. There was acute controversy about his identity. His identity was disputed by, amongst others, the Defendant Bibhabati and also by the Court of Wards who had, in the meantime, in or about the year 1914, assumed charge of the Second Kumar's share in Bhowal Estate upon the footing that the Kumar was dead and his widow and sole heiress Bibhabati was a disqualified proprietor. The dispute eventually led to the institution of the Bhowal Suit (Title suit No. 70 of 1930 of the 1st Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca, later renumbered as T.S. No. 5 of 1933 on transfer to the 5th Court) by the present Plaintiff's husband who claimed to be the second Kumar of Bhowal. This suit was instituted on April 24, 1930, and therein the Plaintiff (who was the present Plaintiff's husband) who described himself as Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal claimed to be the second Kumar of Bhowal and claimed title and possession to l/3rd of the Bhowal Estate on that footing. The suit was keenly contested by the present Defendant Bibhabati and also by the Court of Wards who disputed inter alia the Kumar's identity but it was eventually decreed by the trial court on August 24, 1933 and that decree was affirmed by this Court in the year 1940 and finally by the Privy Council on July 30, 1946. Meanwhile as we have said above, the successful Plaintiff of the Bhowal suit married the present Plaintiff on August 14, 1942 that is, while the Privy Council appeal in the Bhowal case was pending. He, however, died on August 3, 1946, that is, within four days of his winning the Privy Council Appeal and, shortly after his death, a dispute arose between the present Plaintiff Sm. Dhara Devi and the Defendant Bibhabati as to title to the Second Kumar's share in the Bhowal Estate. That dispute became manifest when, early in 1947, the Court of Wards which had once before taken charge of the said share in or about the year 1914, as already stated hereinbefore but had to relinquish possession and make over the same to the successful Plaintiff of the Bhowal suit when he executed his decree during the pendency of the High Court Appeal proposed to assume charge of the said share over again on declaration that both the parties to the present suit, namely, the Plaintiff Dhara Devi and the Defendant Bibhabati, were disqualified proprietors and were incompetent to manage their property. The proposal was made in a letter of the Board of Revenue, dated January 30, 1947, and in reply, both the parties appear to have claimed sole and exclusive title to the Second Kumar's 1/3rd share, though on different grounds. As, however, in the opinion of the Board both the ladies were incompetent to manage their property, the Court of Wards assumed charge of the properties in or about February 1947. As regards payments to the two ladies out of the funds of the Estate, the Board was at first hesitant in view of the conflicting claims made by them to the title to the Estate but, eventually, it decided to pay the present Plaintiff suitable maintenance allowance from the funds of the Estate. It did not, however, accept the Plaintiff's claim of sixteen annas title to the Estate. All this will appear from the several letters which have been exhibited in this case and marked as Exts. 3(i), 30(j), 3(k), 3(m) and 3(n).