MAHAMAYA DASI Vs. SANAT KUMAR LAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule must be made absolute,

(2.) The Rule is directed against an order dated the 19th April, 1968 passed by Shri K.J. Sen Gupta, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, directing the delivery of a motor vehicle to the accused-opposite parties on a joint bond of Rupees 20.000 on condition that they would not be allowed to take the car and use it outside the jurisdiction of Calcutta without previous permission of the court.

(3.) The facts leading on to the present Rule can be set out in a short compass. The case brings to light an unfortunate tussle between the mother and two of her sons and the subject-matter of the dispute is an Ambassador Mark II Car. No. WBG 2448. The parties come of a respectable family of Calcutta The complainant-petitioner, who is the mother is the widow of late Tulshi Charan Law and the two opposite parties are her sons. The late Tulshi Charan Law died leaving 6 sons and 4 daughters. Four of the sons live with the mother as also the youngest sister at 385/1, Keyatala Lane, Calcutta while two other sons who are the opposite parties in the present Rule live separate from the petitioner and others, at 10, Pretoria Street, Calcutta. Three of the daughters have been married. The complainant-petitioner is stated to have been appointed the administratrix pendente lite to the estate of the late Tulshi Charan Law in Testamentary Suit No. 9 of 1963, pending in the High Court. There have been ill-feelings for some time between the parties leading on to the two opposite parties leaving the family residence and put up at 10, Pretoria Street, Calcutta Even a criminal case was filed at Alipore by the opposite party No. 1 Sanat Kumar Law, against two of his brothers and others.