URMILA BALA DAS Vs. BHUBANESWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has no merit and the same shall stand dismissed. The brief facts are as follows:

(2.) The suit land originally belonged to one late Rama Kanta Das, the maternal grant father of the plaintiff; Late Rama Kanta Das had only one issue named Khirodabala, the mother of the plaintiffs, through his 1 st wife. After the death of 1 st wife, Ramakanta married the defendant Urmila Bala Das, who had no issue. Plaintiff as well as Urmila are the heirs of late Rama Kanta Das and it is the case of the plaintiff that they were looking and possessing the suit land and they claimed that they are entitled to 50% of the share of the suit land, but the entire suit land was; mutated in favour of the defendant on 20.2.81 by Rama Kanta Das during his life; time by putting an endorsement and signature in the chitha and the defendant on the basis of the entry and mutation in the chitha expressed her intention to sell the entire suit land. Hence the suit for declaration of title with regard to half of the land. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. She claimed that so far as the owner of the suit land, the suit land was mutated in favour of Urmila on 20.2.80 in place of original pattadar Ramakanta. The possession of the plaintiff was also denied. The trial Court dismissed the suit. There was an appeal being TA 7/94 before the learned Asstt. District Judge, Barpeta and the learned Judge on perusal of the materials on record, rightly found that both the plaintiff and defendant-Urmila are the heirs of late Rama Kanta Das and they had equal share of the property and it was further found by the learned Judge that the endorsement made by the deceased Rama Kanta in the chitha cannot create an absolute right in favour of Urmila Bala. This endorsement in the chitha cannot be considered to be a gift under the Hindu Law. It is well settled that the gift of property can be made only by registered deed with due attestation. That not being done, the claim of gift was negative by the appellate Court and the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for appellant and Mr K. Basar, learned counsel for respondents. Following are the substantial questions of law: