SAILABALA DEVI Vs. INDRAMOHAN PATNI DAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.74 passed by Sri T. Sarma, Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 29 of 1969 (24/71) dismissing the same.

(2.) So far as the facts of the suit are concerned, there is not much variation in the recital in the plaint and the pleadings in the written statement of the defendants. Both sides agree that one Jagat Ram Patni was the original owner of 48B. 19K. 6 Ch. of land covered by R.S. Patta Nos. 45, 46 and 47. Jagat Ram died in 1920 leaving behind two sons, Rajendra and Indramohan (defendant No. 1) and they possessed the land equally in ejmali. Thereafter Rajendra died leaving behind two wives, Ahladini (first wife) and Binodini (second wife). Indramohan was then a minor. Ejmali property was partitioned by a registered deed dated 9-8-1930. Both sides agree up to this stage. Plaintiff Sailabala (daughter of Binodini) averred that Rajendra died leaving her also as an heir. She also averred that Rajendra made a gift of 4B. 18K. in R.S. Patta No. 45 to her mother Binodini by a registered deed dated 1-4-1926. After the death of Rajendra, both Ahladini and Binodini remarried in 1945/56 and thereby they lost their husbands property according to Hindu law and the plaintiff, then a minor, inherited the life-estate on their remarriage and began to possess the land through her uncle Indramohan. But Indramohan did not mutate her name in respect of her life-estate. Thereafter the plaintiff married and left for her husbands home. Taking advantage of such situation, the defendants made certain illegal transfers affecting her legal rights in the Scheduled land. According to defendant No. 1, Ahladini and Binodini sold away their interests in 15B. 4K. 4Ch. out of their share of land measuring 24B. 9K. 11 Ch. to different persons and the rest remained in possession of defendant No. 1, who acquired title by adverse possession and sold away their property and left for a different place.

(3.) Dr. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Assistant District Judge in Issue No. 6 and Issue No. 9. Briefly stated Issue No. 6 was whether Ahladini and Binodini had sold certain lands for legal necessity. Issue No. 9 is the principal issue. It was framed as to whether the plaintiff was legally entitled to inherit the suit land and if so, whether the helf of the suit land can be claimed by her. In deciding Issue No. 6, learned Assistant District Judge presumed that the sales by the mothers of the plaintiff were for legal necessity and as such, these were binding on the plaintiff. In deciding Issue No. 9, the learned Assistant District Judge held that after the sales by her mothers there remained 9B. and odd which she could claim provided she had title thereto and found that the same devolved on defendant No. 1 as next heir of Rajendra and not on the plaintiff and so she was not entitled to any part of the suit land.