KUMUDABANDHU DAS Vs. ASWINI KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 6 was the appellant against a preliminary decree for partition. Since appellant died in a motor accident, step mother and her children claimed to be legal representatives of the appellant who are also defendants in the suit. One Shantilata claiming to be the widow filed petition for substitution as legal representative of deceased. There was an enquiry where report has come that Shantilata is the widow. The said report was contested by step mother, her childlen and legal representatives of pre -deceased son of Lilabati. At last the contest was resolved by settlement where without admitting Shantilata as widow of defendant No. 6, it has been settled that Shantilata shall be entitled to all the movables of deceased Kumudabandhu and step mother with her son and legal representatives would have no right over the same. They would not object if the service benefits on death of Kumudabandhu are made available to Shantilata by the employer and others. Step mother, her sons and legal representatives, however, shall be entitled to the land acquisition compensation in deposit which Kumudabandhu is entitled to receive. On this settlement, the only dispute remaining in the appeal being partition of lot No. 2 of schedule 'B' of the plaint and the compensation in schedule 'C' which is in respect of part of the land in lot No. 2, I allowed the application of step mother (defendant No. 5) and others to be substituted in place of Kumudabandhu and continue appeal.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY common ancestor of the parties is Aparti who had three sons, Gopi, Lokanath and Jagannath @ Jogi. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 belong to the branch of Jagannath. Defendant Nos. 5 to 13 belong to the branch of Gopi. Defendant Nos. 14 onwards belong to the branch of Lokanath. Short question for consideration is whether lot No. 2 belongs to Gopi exclusively on basis of which answer, amount of compensation is to be divided. ,

(3.) A portion of land out of lot No. 2 in 'B' schedule was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, compensation was awarded in favour of all the members of the joint family. Claiming the said award of the trial Court not binding, the defendant No. 5 and her children besides other defendants in the suit filed a suit for declaration that they alone with Kumudabandhu are entitled to the compensation and the award is not binding on them.