SMITA AGARWAL Vs. NIRMAL KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed on behalf of the defendants for setting aside an order dated 12th Jan. 1977, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, restraining the defendants from settling or harvesting the standing crops from the eight annas share out of the total properties, which are the subject-matter in dispute.

(2.) The appellants are defendants in the said suit. Appellant No. 1 is a minor, and she has filed this appeal under the guardianship of appellants 2 and 3, who are her maternal grandmother and maternal uncle, respectively.

(3.) This case has a long history and certain facts have to be stated. On 7-2-1971, in a motor-car accident, one Krishna Kumar Das, his wife Raj Kumari Devi, his son Alok Kumar Agarwal, his daughter-in-law Manju Agarwal, and his grandson Sribardhan Agarwal died. Appellant No. 1 is the minor daughter of the aforesaid Alok Kumar Agarwal and grand-daughter of aforesaid Krishna Das. In order to appreciate the relationship between Appellant No. 1 and the plaintiffs the genealogical table is reproduced below: -- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_112_AIR(PAT)_1978Html1.htm</FRM> Jyoti Kumar Das and Bina Agarwal, who were brother and sister of Alok Kumar Agarwal, however, died before the aforesaid accident. After the death of virtually all the members of the family of Krishna Kumar Das, Appellant No, 1 became the heir of the interest of Krishna Kumar Das, and the properties which were left behind by him and his son were inherited by her as a minor heir. As during the relevant period the minor Appellant No. 1 was residing in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, in April 1971, an application was filed in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil, Court, Calcutta by appellants 2 and 3, who as already stated above, happened to be her maternal grandmother and maternal uncle, for toeing appointed as the guardian of the minor. A case was registered on that application. Notice of that application was issued to the plaintiffs respondents as well as to Sri-mati Lakshmi Devi, wife of plaintiff-respondent No. 1. That application had been filed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the details of the properties belonging to the minor had been given. It has been stated that later a petition for amendment was filed making certain amendments in the list of the properties which was allowed by learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. Plaintiffs and aforesaid Lakshmi Devi appeared in the aforesaid proceeding before the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Calcutta.