KHAGENDRA NATH GHOSH Vs. KARUNADHAR KALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Amitava Dutta, Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 142 of 1966 dated 3rd Sept. 1966 reversing those of Shri B. Mahapatra, Munsif, 3rd Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 68 of 1963 dated 21-12-1965.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 7 are the appellants in this Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title to the suit land and for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit lands belonged to late Charu Chandra Ghosh, on whose death those devolved on his wife Mira Bala. The plaintiff purchased the suit lands by a Kobala dated 15-12-1962 from Mira Bala. On the following day when he went to possess the suit lands and to reap the paddy grown on them by Charu Chandra Ghosh, the principal defendants together resisted him on the plea that they had purchased the suit lands from pro-defendants. Hence, the suit. Only defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 7 contested the suit.

(3.) Their defence is that Mirabala became unchaste during the lifetime of her husband Charu Chandra Ghosh and left him. Under the circumstances, Mirabala could not inherit the property of her husband and the vendors of the principal defendants became his heirs of the suit lands and they later sold the suit lands to the principal defendants, the said sale being much earlier than the sale by Mirabala in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Munsif found on evidence that Mirabala was unchaste during the lifetime of her husband and he was of opinion that unchastity was a bar to inheritance according to old Hindu law and that bar has not been removed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In that view of his finding, the learned Munsif dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge who reversed the findings of the learned Munsif. He found that the learned Munsif was right to hold that Mirabala was unchaste during the lifetime of her husband. But the learned Judge was of opinion that unchastity was no longer a bar to succeed to a husband's property according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. In that view of his finding, the learned Judge decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, defendants Nos. 1, 4 and 7 have come up to this Court.