LATABATI PATRANI Vs. DHUBANI PADHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MARKAND and Kumar were brothers. Bidyadhar and Kanhai (defendant No. 4)are sons of Markand. Defendants 2 and 3 are sons of Kumar. Bidyadhar died in 1954 leaving behind two daughters Dhubani (defendant 1) and Latabati (plaintiff ). The suit is for partition of Una and Cha schedule-properties on the allegation that in a family partition by metes and bounds, these properties fell to the share of bidyadhar and on his death both the daughters are entitled to inherit the same. It is unnecessary to give details of actual partition as the concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below, not assailed, in the second appeal, is that the suit properties fell to the share of Bidyadhar in a family partition by metes and bounds. The entire argument has been confined to the sole point whether defendant 1 alone is entitled to inherit the properties of Bidyadhar to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that there was no reliable evidence on either side to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the husband of the plaintiff is richer than the husband of defendant No. 1. The lower appellate Court reversed this finding and concluded that on a scrutiny of the evidence on record, there could he no doubt that the plaintiff was better provided for than defendant No. 1 and that defendant no. 1 alone was entitled to inherit the properties of Bidyadhar. Against the appellate decree the second appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE Courts below are somewhat confused as to the correct position of law. Before the relevant law is examined, it would be pertinent to precisely record the finding which the learned advocates on both the sides accept, that at the time bidyadhar died defendant 1's husband had one acre of land and used to work as a labourer while the plaintiff's husband had three and a half acre of land to his share in a large family. Though inflated cases had been advanced by both the parties alleging that the other party was very much affluent, such cases have not been established by any acceptable evidence. The question for consideration is whether on the aforesaid finding defendant No. 1 would exclude the plaintiff from inheritance.

(3.) A person pleading exclusion from inheritance must establish it and comparative status of the daughters must be examined on the date when succession opened. Plaintiff and defendant-1 are married. Law on the point has been very precisely summarised in Raghabacharia's Hindu Law, 5th Ed. At page 486. The passage may be profitably extracted.