BHABANGANA DEBYA Vs. HARENDRA NARAIN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the orders, dated the 1st and the 22nd May 1912, should not be set aside on the ground that they were made without jurisdiction and that the first order was made without notice to the petitioner.

(2.) The following are the facts of the case: One Chandra Kanta Lahiri and others were co- Owners of a patni, called Taraf Chupri. Under the Bengal Tenancy Act, a common manager was appointed by the District Judge as there existed a dispute among the co-owners as to the management of this patni estate, which was likely to cause injury to private rights. Sometime after the appointment of this common manager, Chandra Kanta Lahiri died leaving a Will under which the present petitioner, who is his widow, obtained one-and-a-half annas share in the taluk. Nalini Kanta Lahiri, a son of the deceased, was appointed executor under the Will and as such he obtained Probate thereof, after which he used to receive rents from the common manager due on account of the petitioner, his mother, who again used to receive her share of the rent from the executor, her son. It seems that this arrangement went on satisfactorily for sometime, when there arose a difference between the petitioner and her son and as a result of this difference, it is said that her son began to appropriate her share of the rent, and on an application to the District Judge, the common manager was directed to stop payment of the petitioner s share of the rent to him.

(3.) In 1909, the common manager resigned and another was appointed by the District Judge on the nomination of Nalini.