SATIS CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. KALIDASI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in the pre. Rent appeal is an estate of considerable value left by one Kedar Nath Ghose who died intestate on the 7th October 19(sic)5. The foundation of the fortune of the family was laid by his father, Govinda Chandra Ghosh, who executed a Willon the 21 August 1905 which was registered, but was not probated alter his death on the 9 November 1913. The relationship of the members of the joint family composed of the descendants of Govinda Chandra Ghose will appear from the following genealogical table:

(2.) Govinda Chandra Ghosh had four sons, Ambika Charan and Moti Lal who died in his lifetime, and Kedar Nath and Satis Chandra who survived him. When Kedar Nath died, he left him surviving his brother, Satis Chandra, his widow Kalidasi, his widowed daughters Nalinibala and Chinabala, and two granddaughters, Radharani and Umasasi. The widow, Kalidasi, had two brothers Kamini and Rajkumar, and was the daughter of a family of Dectis whose genealogical table is set out below:

(3.) Shortly after the death of Kedar Nath Ghose, a partition deed was executed on the 4th November 1915 between his brother Satis Chandra and his widow Kalidasi, and the document was registered on the 8 December 1915. On the 28 June 1916 the widow instituted the present suit for cancellation of the partition deed on the ground of fraud and unfairness, for declaration of exclusive title to a bard ware business, its assets and the properties acquired from its income, for declaration of joint title to other properties, for partition and accounts, and for incidental reliefs. The defendant denied all the material allegations in tie plaint, repelled the imputation that the partition dead had not bean fairly obtained, asserted that the properties claimed as exclusively owned by the husband of the plaintiff really formed part of the, joint family estate, and repudiated all liability to render accounts. On these pleadings, the following issues were framed end set down for trial: 1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action? 2. Can the suit proceed without ad valorem Court fees being paid en the value, pf the entire properties in suit? 3. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties?