KALIPADA DUTTA Vs. TARA PADO RAKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were some of the defendants in the action and the respondents in the court of appeal below. They have come up to this Court against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiff-respondents are heirs of the original plaintiff Girish Chandra Rakshit, who having died, the respondents first set were substituted in his place. The other respondents were pro forma defendants in the suit.

(2.) The facts are short and simple. Shorn of all details, one Jagannath Dutta died leaving behind two wives, the first being Madhubala Dasy and the second Subhadra Bala Dasy. The first wife Madhubala Dasy left behind four daughters, Kripamoyee, Sukhada, Sumi-tra alias Changi and Bidhumukhi. The sole plaintiff, who had instituted the suit, was one of the sons of Sukhada aforementioned aS has already been stated above, the plaintiff Girish Chandra Rakshit died during the course of this litigation leaving behind the respondents first set in this appeal From the second wife of Jagannath Dutta, there were two sons and, one daughter. The daughter Purnabala Dasy died leaving behind no issue. One son Bishna Charan left behind two sons, Dwijapadda, defendant No. 3 and Niranjan, defendant No. 4; and Kulesh Dutta, who was original defendant No. 1, left behind a son Govind Dutta Kali Pada, defendant No. 2 and the latter's son Ajit Dutta, defendant No. 5. As has already been pointed out earlier, all these defendants 2 to 5 have been described as pro forma defendants. The real contest was between Girish Chandra Rakshit and Kulesh Dutta, defendant No. 1, whose respective heirs are litigating under the same title as their forbears. Sumitra alias Changi, the daughter from the first wife Madhubala Dasy left behind certain properties to which Girish Chandra Dutta laid claim as the son of Sukhada, who was the own sister of Sumitra as sister's son. On the contrary, Kulesh Dutta, defendant No. 1, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants was claiming a rival title and preferential claim to the properties left behind by Sumitra as a step brother. This in a nutshell is the contest between the parties.

(3.) Admittedly the parties are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Admittedly again the property left behind by Sumitra was her Stridhan property. While according to the appellants, the property fell within 'Yantuka' class of Stridhan property, the brother of Sumitra would be entitled to have a preferential claim, the case of the contesting respondents is that the property fell within 'Ayantaka' class of Stridhan property.