RADHA KINKAR GORAIN Vs. MONIBATI GORAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants against the judgment of affirmance arises out of a suit for partition. One Sharda Goraln had two wives, Lakshmibala and Sumitrabala. The former predeceased her husband leaving behind one daughter Kaminibala. Sharda Gorain died in 1930 leaving behind Sumitrabala and Kaminibala. Kamnibala also died in 1942 leaving behind three sons who are defendants in the suit and a daughter, namely, Monibati who is the plaintiff. Sumitrabala died on 1-6-1970.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, after the death of Sharda Gorain his widow came in possession of his property as the sole heir and remained in possession till her death. Thereafter, the property devolved in equal shares upon the defendants and the plaintiff, being the heirs of her husband under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On account of the difficulties in joint possession of the property, the plaintiff requested for partition and on refusal instituted the suit claiming 1/4 share in the property. The case of the defendants on the other hand is that on the death of Sharda Gorain in 1930, his daughter Kaminibala came in exclusive possession of the entire property. It is said that sometime after the death of Sharda Gorain Sumitrabala surrendered her entire interest in the estate of her husband in favour of Kaminibala who was the next reversioner of her husband. Later, she renounced the world, because an ascetic and died as such. The property remained throughout in possession of Kaminibala in her own rights till her death in 1942. Thereafter, the defendants being her sons came in its possession as exclusive heirs to the exclusion of the plaintiff who, according to the then Hindu Law, being a daughter could not inherit along with the son. Thus, the defendants denied that the plaintiff had any right, title or interest in the suit property.

(3.) Both the courts below have concurrently held that the story of surrender of the property by Sumitrabala propounded by the defendants is untrue. She and not Kaminibala remained in possession of the property till her death. By virtue of the provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she became its absolute owner on 17th June, 1956. After her death in 1970, the property developed upon the heirs of her husband including the plaintiff. The plaintiff was, thus, entitled to l/4th share in the suit property.