RAMCHANDRA SAHU Vs. SM SAFELI GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the judgment, dated the 25th January, 1960, of the 1st Additional District Judge Darbhanga, the sole applicant, Dr. Radha Prasanna Ghosh, was granted Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of one late Mr. J. G. V. Gurner of Samastipur, and opposite party No. 7, Ramchandra Sahu, has filed this appeal against the judgment. The following facts are admitted. Mr. Gurner was a British born Christian European subject of India and he died on the 12th June, 1942, leaving behind him two daughters from his second wife, who were made opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 and four grandchildren from his first wife on her daughters' side. They were made opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Gurner left a house within Samastipur Municipality situated on survey plot Nos. 1S2, 183 and 184.

(2.) Opposite Party Nos. 5 and 6 obtained succession certificate with regard to the moveable properties of Mr. Gurner and took possession of the house. On the 15th December, 1945, opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 executed a sale deed In respect of the entire house along with the land on which it stood in favour of opposite party No. 7 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. On the 10th February, 1947, opposite party No. 1 as guardian for opposite party No. 2 as also for self and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 executed a sale deed in respect of their one-third share in the house including the land on which it stood in favour of the applicant for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/-.

(3.) In 1947 the applicant filed partition Suit No. 35 for partition of his one-third share in the house. The suit was decreed on the 30th November, 1948. There was first Appeal No. 25 of 1949 filed in this Court by opposite party No. 7 and it was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated the 12th March, 1958. In this appeal the decree in favour of the applicant was upheld with a modification, reducing the applicant's share to one-fourth from onethird, as it was held that opposite party No. 1 could not validly transfer the share of minor opposite party No. 2 and the transfer to the extent of her share, namely, one-twelfth, was invalid.