PARBATI KUMARI DEBI Vs. JAGADIS CHUNDER DHABAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised by this appeal relate to the succession to Raja Purna Chunder, who died on 23 August 1886. He left no issue, but was survived by two widows and a half- brother. One of the two widows, Rani Radha Kumari Debi, granted a release, and, although appearing as a defendant in this suit, raised no claim adverse to the interest of the half- brother, and does not appear in this appeal. The half-brother has died since this suit was instituted and is now represented by his son, the minor respondent. The present controversy is between the appellant, who is the other widow, on the one hand, and the son of the brother on the other hand, and relates to two subject-matters of very different values. Those are (1) the ancestral estates of the deceased Puma Chunder, which are situate in the Jungle Mehals of Midnapore and are claimed by the appellant on the ground that the succession is governed by the Dayabhaga law, which would give it to her; and (2) four mouzahs bought by the Court of Wards with the savings of Prima Chunder's estate, while it was under their management, which the appellant claims, even assuming the Mitakshara law to govern(sic) The respondent's answer to the claim to the ancestral estates is that the Mitakshara and not the Dayabhaga law rules, and under the Mitakshara law he is the undoubted heir; but he says further that, even if the Dayabhaga law governed, the right to compete with him would lie not in the appellant, but in the other widow, who has renounced her rights in his favour. On the question of the four mouzahs he maintains that the conduct of Purna Chunder in dealing with this property showed his intention that it should go with the ancestral properties. By much the most important and complicated question thus raised is as to which system of law governs this succession--the Mitakshara or the Dayabhaga.

(2.) The suit was brought by the appellant, whose plaint was filed on 14 April 1893, the lands in dispute having by this time been taken possession of by the half-brother. The defendants were Iswar Chunder (the half-brother) and Radha Kumari, the other widow. The appellant prayed for a declaration that she was entitled, either jointly with the other widow or exclusively, to the whole estate, moveable, or immoveable of the deceased Purna Chunder, or for a similar declaration as regards his self-acquired property, or to maintenance. The appellant alleged that, upon the death of her husband, who (as she averred) like his ancestors had lived under, and was governed by, the Bengal school of Hindu law, she and the other widow, as his co-heiresses, became entitled to the Jamboni Raj, which was the ancestral estate, and also to his self-acquired properties. It was further averred that the second defendant (the other widow) had granted to the first defendant a release and declaration, which transaction was characterised as fraudulent and collusive. The plaint (and by consequence all the proceedings) were greatly inflated and complicated by a number of questions, now extinct, which it would be superfluous to rehearse.

(3.) Written statements were filed on behalf of both defendants. The first defendant, Iswar Chunder, claimed the Raj as heir under the Mitakshara law and also the long-standing custom and usage of the family. He explained that his ancestors were originally inhabitants of Dharanuggur in the North-West Provinces, where the Mitakshara Shastra was in force; that they came from there and took possession of the lands now in question; that since then and to the present time their family ceremonies have been performed according to the Mitakshara; and that the right of inheritance is determined according to it.