(1.) Succession to Stridhana other than a gratuity for which a girl is given in marriage goes to unmarried daughter in preference to a married daughter and a married daughter who is unprovided for is preferred to a married daughter who is provided for; in case there is no daughter to inherit, daughter's daughter succeeds and in absence of a daughter's daughter, daughter's son succeeds. Son comes to inherit only when no daughter or daughter's daughter or son is available followed by the son's son succeeding to Stridhana. If there be none of these, in other words if the woman dies without leaving any issue, her Stridhana goes to her husband and after him to the husband's heirs in order of their succession to him and on failure of husband's heirs it goes to her blood relations in preference to the State. This precisely is the line of succession to stridhana which has got textual approval. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, however, has intervened to make some provisions therefor. The question herein, however, is who amongst the blood relations is preferred and in what order.
(2.) I shall advert to the question in some depth but before I do so here are some facts : The plaintiff-respondent has claimed declaration of title and confirmation of possession in the alternative recovery of possession. According to him, Plot No. 1819 having an area of 1 Katha 1 Dhurs in Mohalla Dangalpara, Ward No. 6, Dumka Dangalpara, having Jamabandi No. 29/12 belonged to Grant Estate. In the year 1920 it was settled with one Tetari Domin wife of Mukhlal Mirdha and a registered deed was executed on 9-9-1926. Mukhlal Mirdha constructed a house on some portion of the said land and lived with his wife. Tetari Domin and her husband however, died issueless. Tetari's four brothers namely Giro Mirdha, Kaila Mirdha, Kulho Mirdha and Pancho Mirdha took the land and house and partitioned equally and came in separate possession accordingly. Giro Mirdha died after two years of the death of Tetari leaving behind his two daughters namely Bachiya and Jagani as his only legal heirs. Kolho Mirdha also died about four years after Tetari's death leaving behind his son Butka Mirdha. Giro's share was divided in two equal shares between his two daughters Bachiya and Jagani and they came in separate possession. Butka got Kolho's interest. The plaintiff purchased 10 Dhurs of Plot No. 1819 from Butka, Jagani and Bachiya through a registered sale deed dated 22-10-1971. He has constructed a house thereon. Janki Mirdha, Manik Mirdha and Kunkun Mirdha sons of Kaila Mirdha and Panchu Mirdha who happen to be nephew and brothers of Tetari Domin, however, wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land which is adjacent south of the residential house of the plaintiff, giving rise to a proceeding under S.144 of the Criminal P.C. and having failed in their attempt to dispossess the plaintiff and in the proceeding under S.144 of the Criminal P.C. Janki and others sold the entire area of Plot No. 1819 including the suit land to the defendants 1st party through a registered sale deed dated 31-3-1972, according to plaintiff, without any consideration. Defendants 1st party thereafter started creating trouble. A proceeding under S.107 of the Criminal P.C. was started followed by a proceeding under S.145 of the Cr. P.C. in which proceeding the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dumka, declared possession of the defendants-1st party.
(3.) The contest by the defendants in the main is that the settlement was made in the name of Tetari Domin but she died in the year 1949 without leaving behind any issue. She was survived by her two brothers namely Kaila Mirdha and Pancho Mirdha. Her other two brothers Giro and Kolho had predeceased her. Mukhlal Tetari's husband and Kalkatia her father had also predeceased her. Her two surviving brothers, thus, came in exclusive possession and continued in joint possession until they transferred the suit land to the contesting defendants. They have given a separate version about possession and a portion in occupation of a tenant and said that under the terms of original Patta and Kabuliyat a portion of Plot No. 1819 could not he transferred without the permission of the landlord. They have also said that the plaintiff's sale deed does not relate to the suit land.