JANDEBI Vs. UPENDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JANARDAN died in 1920 leaving behind his widow Brundabati and daughters narayani and Jandebi (plaintiff ). Brundabati died in January, 1958. Narayani died in 1942 leaving behind her sons Upen-dra and Rajendra (defendants 1 and 2 ). After Janardan's death, Brundabati executed a registered deed of gift (Ex. C) on 17-5-20 in respect of the disputed property In favour of Narayani. The suit was filed on 17-3-58 for recovery of possession of the disputed property after a declaration that the gift was void and was not binding on the plaintiff after the death of Brundabati. All the courts have concurrently held that the gift was void and was not binding on the plaintiff after the death of Brundabati. The trial court held that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) applied to the case and both the plaintiff and the defendants would simultaneously inherit the properties of Janardan and the plaintiff was entitled to only eight annas interest. It accordingly declared plaintiff's title to half the disputed property and directed her to be put in joint possession with the defendants. The Subordinate Judge held that Section 8 had no application and the succession would be governed by the provisions of orthodox Hindu law. It accordingly decreed the entire suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In second appeal, the learned Single Judge held that Section 8 had application and restored the decree of the trial court. Plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the aforesaid view.

(2.) THE only question for consideration in this appeal is whether Section 8 of the act or the orthodox Hindu law would govern the succession to the disputed property on the death of Brundabati. If Section 8 would apply to the devolution of the property in 1958, then the orthodox Hindu law would have no application. This conclusion flows directly from Section 4 of the Act, the relevant portions of which run thus:--

(3.) BEFORE examining the question whether Section 8 has application to this case, it would be profitable to analyse the position under the old Hindu law. When janardan died in 1920, his properties were inherited by his widow Brundabati who was the next heir. Her estate was, however, a limited one. On her death, the properties would revert to Janardan and descend to those who would have been his heirs if he had lived upto and died at the moment of her death AIR 1946 PC 173, Lala Duri Chand v. Mst Anar Kali. Plaintiff is the next reversioner and is a preferential heir to the defendants (See Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th Ed. at p. 109 ). Thus if the orthodox Hindu law applies, plaintiff's suit is to be decreed in toto.