BISHNUPRIYA MOHANTY Vs. PRAVAT KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) THE genealogy of the parties as stated by the plaintiffs is as follows :

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have arrived at a finding of fact that the mother of proforma defendant No. 4 and the plaintiff were daughters of Banamali and not Maguni. The said finding being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in this Second Appeal as there is no error of law on the part of the learned Courts below to have arrived at the said finding of fact. Now, considering the plaintiff-Bishnupriya and the mother of proforma defendant No. 4 late Sampada to be the daughters of Banamali and further taking note of the fact that during pendency of this appeal, the wife of Banamali i.e., late Sebati has expired on 28-11 -2004, it is found that the plaintiff -Bishnupriya and the proforma defendant No. 4 will be entitled to a share out of the property succeeded by the late wife of Banamali i.e. Sebati as Banamali expired prior to 1956, i.e. on 6-1-1955 and Sebati, under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 became a limited owner over l/3rd property left behind by Banamali and she became absolute owner thereon by operation of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. After the death of Sebati during pendency of the Second Appeal, the plaintiff and the proforma defendant No. 4 will succeed to the share of late Sebati along with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 6(a), who have been substituted in place of Sebati and her daughters along with the plaintiff and late mother of proforma defendant No. 4. Hence, the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 4 will each get 1/18th share over the disputed property.