HIRALAL ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. KUMUD BEHARI ROY CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for addition of a party in a partition suit and a very interesting point of law on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been canvassed.

(2.) The suit in which the present application is made is a suit for partition of the estate left by Sashi Bhusan Roy Chowdhury, who died intestate in 1922, leaving him surviving Indu Bhusan, a son by his pre-deceased wife, and a second wife and three sons by her. We are not concerned in this application about the second wife and her sons. Indu Bhusan died in 1946, leaving him surviving his widow Sarajubala, a son Ramani Bhusan and a daughter Bidyutlata. The present suit for partition was instituted on 24-7-1953. On 10-2-1956, a preliminary decree for partition was passed by me, declaring the shares of the parties and appointing a Commissioner of Partition to work out the preliminary decree. The preliminary decree declares Sarajubala's share In the joint properties to be that of a Hindu widow as prescribed by Hindu Law and directs that the share to be allotted to her be held by her as a Hindu widow during her natural life. On 17-6-1956, the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The point raised by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner Bidyutlata, is that under Section 14 of the said Act, Sarajubala, on the date of the Act coming into force, became entitled to her share in absolute title and not as a Hindu widow during her natural life. On 5-3-1957, Sarajubala died. On Sarajubala's death, Bidyutlata and Ramani Bhusan, as Sarajubala's heirs, have become equally entitled to the property left by her. On the basis of this title, the present notice has been taken out by Bidyutlata for herself being added as a party and for determination of her share in the property in suit and for passing of a new preliminary decree; in the (alternative, for rectification of the preliminary decree already passed. Section 14, Hindu Succession Act. 1956 reads as follows :

(3.) It is argued, in the second place, that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Women's estate has become an absolute estate, though prior to mat date it meant a restricted estate. Therefore, on a construction of the decree itself I should hold that Sarajubala has acquired absolute title in the property allotted-to her under the decree. In the submission of Mr. Chatterjee, the other construction will run counter to the whole spirit of the Act of 1956. Again, the Legislature cannot have intended to make the section inapplicable simply because of the passing of a preliminary decree declaring the rights of a Hindu widow acquired by inheritance.