DULEI BEWA Vs. BIMALI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the three daughters of Rama. THE following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties. A preliminary decree was passed on 3-7-58 and admittedly Rani (defendant No. 3) got 1/4th share in the preliminary decree in a division with three sons, each one of whom got one share. Rani died on 20-10-60. On her death the petitioner filed an application (that?) the 1/4th share of the total property declared in favour of Rani in the preliminary decree was a property belonging to Rani, and so the petitioners are entitled to a share out of it by succession under the Hindu Succession Act. THE plaintiff opposed the claim on the ground that until final partition by metes and bounds Rani had no vested title in the property and so the petitioners are not entitled to be substituted.

(2.) THE matter was gone into thoroughly by the learned trial court who came to the conclusion that Rama died in 1935 and Rani was a pre-Act widow, and so she was not entitled to any share under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. Relying on Pratapmull v. Dhanbati Bibi, AIR 1936 PC 20 the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that even though in the preliminary decree Rani got 1/4th of the total property, she was owner in respect of this property under the Hindu Law. He accordingly rejected the petitioner's prayer for substitution. Against this order of the learned Subordinate Judge this Civil Revision has been filed.