GOURI SANKAR PODDAR Vs. GURUPADA HALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Pran Krishna Haldar died in 1866. His widow Nithambini brought a suit in 1868 against Pram Krishna's mother Biswamoyee and his daughter by another wife Troilakhyatarini for recovery of possession of property left by Pran Krishna Haldar. The dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration, but before the arbitrator no one appeared on behalf of the defendant Biswamoyee and Troilakhyatarini The arbitrator took the evidence offered on behalf of Nithambini and made an award. It will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the award of the arbitrator: It, appears to me that the claim put forward by Sreemati Biswamoyee Debi in her written statement under a verbal gift made in her favour by her son and the allegation made to the effect that five bighas of Brahammater lands in two plots in village Chetla were purchased with her Stridhan are wholly false and fraudulent. The claim as to 12 cottas of lands and palas made by Sreemati Troilakhya Tarini Devi by means of a petition dated 17 February 1868 also appears to me to be wholly baseless and false The said petition has been filed through Sreemati Troilakhyatarini for the purpose of extinguishing the true rights of the plaintiff and putting an end to her claim On account of the foregoing reasons I think the plaintiff's claim together with costs and mesne profits ought to be decreed, but as the plaintiff is willing to give up a portion of her claim for the purpose of maintenance and for food and raiment of her mother-in-law Sreemati Biswamoyee Devi and her step-daughter Srimati Troilakhyatarim Devi I decree in favour of the plaintiff a ten annas share of the residential house at Kalighat including all its parts as well as of the other properties together with mesne profits.

(2.) This award was filed in Court and the following decree was passed in accordance with it. Whereas the grounds of the decision in the suit which has been arrived at by the arbitrator appointed by the parties have been recorded on a paper signed by the Court, hence it is ordered that this suit be decreed. That the plaintiff do get a decree for possession of the entire Bhadrisan Bati and the lands appertaining thereto and in ten annas share of the other property with mesne profits....The costs for stamps and court-fees and entire costs of the plaintiff shall be paid by the defendant Biswamoyee and the defendants shall bear their own costs.

(3.) There was subsequently a partition between the parties as a result of which the land in the suit was allotted to Biswamoyee. Biswamoyee died in 1899 and Nithambini died in 1919. We do not know as to what became of Troilakhyatarini. This suit was started in 1923 by the reversioner of Pran Krishna Haldar on the ground that the property in suit belonged to the estate of Pran Krishna and he as the reversioner was entitled to possession of it. The defendant is a lessee from Biswamoyee under a mourashi mokarari patta dated 15th December 1894. The plaintiff's case is that the result of the previous litigation in 1868 was to give a life interest to Biswamoyee to the property in suit, and that the plaintiff's right to claim possession of it accrued after the death of Nithambini. The defence, on the other hand, was that Biswamoyee had an absolute interest in the property and she was competent to make a permanent settlement of the land with the defendant. I should have felt no difficulty "in deciding the question raised but for the fact that this matter came up before this Court at the instance of a defendant in another suit and it was decided against the plaintiff. The report of the case Upendra Nath Mnkherjee V/s. Gurupada Haldar .