MITTULAL SINGHANIA Vs. PURSOTOME DEBI BAGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs who claim to be reversioners have instituted this suit in which they pray that the defendant Sm. Pursotome Devi Bagla, be restrained from dealing with certain property on the allegation that she is a limited owner thereof and is threatening to waste it. I set out below a geneological table, the accuracy of which is now admitted to show how the parties are related.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that Johura Bibi died possessed of certain stridhone property. She left behind her Eameswardas, the adopted son of her co-wife and two daughters Pursotome Devi Bagla and Rampeary. Her daughter Manvhari Bai predeceased her, leaving two sons, Mittulal and Sasonlal. They are the plaintiffs in this suit. Rameswardas died on 12 March 1937, leaving a widow, Mt. Moyna and a minor son Dwarkaprosad. In the year 1938 Pursotome Debi Bagla who is the present defendant instituted a suit in this Court against Moyna Bibi, Dwarkaprosad and Rampeary, for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the plaint of that suit constituted the stridhone property of her mother, Johura Bibee; she claimed these properties on the footing that she was the stridhone heir of her mother as she was an indigent daughter. Her allegation was that Rampeary was married to a wealthy husband. In that suit Mittulal and Sasonlal were not parties. Rampeary did not defend the suit. Moyna Bibi and Dwarkaprosad raised various contentions but ultimately the suit was settled between them and Pursotome Devi Bagla. By the terms of settlement, it was declared that the property of Johura Bibi consisted of one 3 per cent. Government Promissory Note No. 109681 of the face value of Rs. 2,30,000. The parties compromising agreed that this Government Promissory Note should be made over to Pursotome Devi Bagla, who would be entitled to receive also all the arrears of interest. As Rampeary did not appear, a decree was passed against her ex parte, declaring that Pursotome Devi Bagla being an indigent daughter was entitled to succeed to the stridhone property of the deceased Johura Bibi.

(3.) The present suit is instituted by Mittulal and Sasonlal, two sons of Manvhari Bai, the daughter who predeceased her mother, Johura Bibi. They allege that Pursotome Devi Bagla is entitled to the aforesaid Government Promissory Note as limited owner, she being the stridhone heir of Johura Bibi. They allege further that after the decree was passed in the suit referred to above, Pursotome Devi Bagla is attempting to alienate the Government Promissory Note. On these grounds they sue for an injunction restraining her from disposing of the promissory note and in the alternative for a receiver. The defence taken by Pursotome Devi Bagla may be summarised as follows : 1. The suit as framed is bad inasmuch as the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., have not been complied with. 2. The plaintiffs not being, the next reversioners are not competent to institute the suit. 3. The verification of the plaint is defective and on that ground the suit should be dismissed. 4. Pursotome Devi Bagla has an absolute right to the property in suit and has not merely a limited interest. 5. Even if the interest of Pursotome Devi Bagla is that of a stridhone heir, the plaintiffs have not established any circumstance which would justify the Court in placing any fetter upon her full enjoyment of the property as stridhone heir.