SATYADEO PRASAD Vs. CHANDERJOTI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Chapra on the 22nd of January, 1957, in Title suit No. 52 of 1952, They have, therefore, been heard together and this judgment will govern them both.

(2.) One Jagarnath Ram, with his wife Shyama Devi, was living in a house constructed at Bhatpar Rani; and, as he had no issue through Shyama Devi, he married the plaintiff. According to the case of the plaintiff, he had vast business in rice mills etc. at different places, apart from agricultural lands in villages Kurthia, Shibpur, Pagra and Belwa in the district of Saran. He had also some parti lands in villages Sohanpur and Salempur. Admittedly, this Jagarnath Ram died in January, 1944, leaving his two widows, namely, the plaintiff and the aforesaid Shyama Devi, who, according to the case of the plaintiff, inherited the properties left by him and they were in joint possession thereof. The case of the plaintiff is that Shyama Devi was an intelligent lady and, after the death of Jagarnath Ram, she was looking after the management of the estate inherited by them, with the help of her brother Hardeo Prasad (defendant No. 2). Her allegation is that she was not given any account of the income and expenditure of the estate of her husband by Shyama Devi and her brother, and subsequently she learnt that Shyama Devi, in collusion with her brother Hardeo Prasad, was executing several documents in respect of the properties belonging to the estate of her husband in favour of Hardeo Prasad and his sons, defendants 3 and 4. The plaintiff, therefore, demanded partition of her half share in the estate of her husband from Shyama Devi and, on her refusal to accede to her request, she filed a suit for partition of her half share in the same and for separate possession thereof.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 Shyama Devi and defendant No. 3 filed one joint written statement and defendants 2 and 4 filed another joint written statement. The defence taken in both the written statements is substantially identical. They have admitted that Jagarnath had some business and some landed properties as described in Schedule A of their written statements. They have grouped the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in five schedules in their written statements. The properties mentioned in Schedule A of the written statements, as already stated, have been admitted to be that of Jagarnath. They contend that the properties mentioned in Schedule B of the written statements exclusively belonged to Shyama Devi, having been acquired by her with her own personal fund. According to them, the properties described in Schedule C of the written statements were the exclusive properties of defendants 2 and 4. With regard to the properties described in Schedules D and E of the written statements, their case is that they had no concern with the same. But with respect to the properties mentioned in Schedule E of the written statements their contention is that they too originally belonged to Jagarnath, but he had dedicated the same to Vishnu Bhagwan over which Pandit Tiha Ram Tewary, resident of Pagra, was put in possession and occupation. They denied the existence of cash and movables, as alleged in the plaint. Their further contention is that Jagarnath wanted to adopt Satdeo (defendant No. 3) as his son in his life time, but he died before he could adopt him. He, therefore, instructed defendant No. 1 to adopt Satdeo as his son, and, in obedience to her husband's instructions, she adopted Satdeo as her son. It was further contended that she executed a deed of will on the 1st of April, 1950 in favour of defendant No. 3 in respect of her stridhan properties described in Schedule B of the written statements. They also contended that one of the items of the suit properties, namely, the business of commission agency at Calcutta, ceased to function after the death of Jagarnath and its final accounting had been done before the institution of the suit. They put forward a further plea that, even with respect to the properties described in Schedule A of the written statements, the plaintiff lost her right on account of her having remarried with one Kedarnath of village Bagaha in Sagai form after the marriage of her daughter Savitri.