LACHHIA SAHUAIN Vs. RAM SHANKAR SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge passed in First Appeal No. 62 of 1960. The first appeal arose out of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) One Ganga Sah had married twice. By his first wife he had two sons, namely, Ram Shankar Sah, the respondent, and one Ramjas Sah, who died issueless. Appellant Lachhia Sahuain was the second wife of Ganga Sah and she has a son named Bhagwan Das. During his lifetime Ganga Sah executed a registered deed (Exhibit 1) dated the 18th of August, 1939, which has been described as a Bantan Nama. By the said deed Ganga Sah distributed his properties amongst his sons and his second wife appellant Lachhia Sahuain. It appears that 0.80 acres of land in village Jhajhapara, which had been allotted to Lachhia Sahuain by Exhibit 1, was acquired by the Government for the construction of Dumka Suri Division Road. Ram Shankar Sah filed an objection to the effect that the compensation awarded for the acquisition of 0.80 acres of land should not be paid to Lachhia Sahuain as she was a limited owner. Accordingly a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge, Santal Parganas, Dumka, upon a construction of the relevant paragraphs of the document (Exhibit 1) held that the document in question was a deed of partition and it did not prescribe a restricted estate in the property which was allotted to appellant Lachhia Sahuain. Accordingly he took the view that under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Lachhia Sahuain became an absolute owner and she was entitled to receive the compensation. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned District Judge, Ram Shankar Sah filed the first appeal. The learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the District Judge and took the view that the partition deed had prescribed a restricted estate in favour of Lachhia Sahuain and as such Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act applied. In the result, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the District Judge was set aside and the case was remanded to the District Judge of Santal Parganas for proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. Lachhia Sahuain has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision of the learned single Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended before us that the learned single Judge has not correctly interpreted Exhibit 1. It was submitted that Exhibit 1 is a deed of partition and there is no clause. In the said deed of partition which has prescribed a restricted estate in the property allotted to appellant Lachhia Sahuain. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the deed in question is not a deed of partition but a deed of family arrangement and it has prescribed a restricted estate in the property which was allotted to Lachhia Sahuain. It appears that before the learned Single Judge reliance was placed on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the deed in question for showing that it prescribed a restricted estate in the property allotted to Lachhia Sahuain. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the deed which have been translated read as follows: