ANJALI BERA Vs. PARITOSH DOBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional Application directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Tamluk, in T.S. No. 26 of 1987 in the Suit filed under Sec. 22 Hindu Succession Act.

(2.) The Opposite Party No. 1 as plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the learned Munsif 1st Court, Tamluk against the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 for declaration on preferential right under Sec. 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for pre-emption. The petitioner has also filed a written objection against the allegations averred in the plaint. The opposite party as plaintiff has stated, inter alia, in his plaint that the Suit plots originally belonged to one Indra Narayan Dolui who had two wives, Jamuna and Kumari Deye. Kumari Deye was issueless whereas Jamuna had two sons, i.e., Saroda Prosad and Annada Prosad. Saroda Prasad had two wives. The first wife, Rajani had only one daughter, Basana. The second wife Kishoribala had two sons, such as, Paritosh, the plaintiff and Parimal and a daughter Bidyut Lata. Annada had no son. He had only one daughter, namely, Angurbala Parui, the mother of defendant No. 1 Indra Narayan transferred the entire suit plots in favour of his second wife Kumari Deye. The heirs of Saroda and Annada inherited the suit property with restricted right of life-estates. In a previous suit being T.S. 57/78, there was a solenama under which the heirs of Saroda and the mother of defendant No. 1 were allotted eastern half of the suit property. The defendant No. 2 being heir and successor of Saroda Prosad sold her share to defendant No. 1 on 9.7.1983 for Rs. 8,000.00. The plaintiff claimed that he also wanted to purchase the property sold by Saroda Prosad but as he was unaware of such transaction having taken place between defendant No. 1 and 2, he could not purchase the same.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 seriously disputed the averments of the plaintiff by alleging, inter alia, that she purchased the share of Basana after her death from her heirs. The plaintiff was all along aware of such said transaction. The defendant No. 2 propsed her mother to purchase the same. The defendant No. 1, therefore, purchased the suit land being contiguous to her land for a consideration of Rs. 8,000.00. The suit was, however, instituted at the beginning before the Munsif, 3rd Court in T.S. 24 of 1984 but, it was transferred to the Additional Court and re-numbered as T.S. 26 of 1986. The said plaint was subsequently, returened, then, the present suit has been filed being T.S. No. 26/86. The defendant No. 1 has also raised several serious contention, that the Court did possess neither pecuniary nor territorial jurisdiction and the plaintiff had also equally lost his right of pre-emption. With these averments, the defendant No. 1 had claimed for dismissal of die suit. The Trial Court after carefully going through the oral and documentary evidence was, however, inclined to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.