BHUBANMOHINI DASI Vs. KUMUDBALA DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the third, fourth and fifth defendants in a suit for partition of joint family properties. The relationship of the parties may be gathered from the following genealogical table:

(2.) The founder of the family, Digambar Kasyapi, left two sons, Nabin and Rasik. Nabin amassed a considerable fortune and died on the 21 November 1899. He left a widow Bhubanmohini and six sons. One of them, Behari, died leaving two sons, Rajani and Sajani. Another son, Makhan, died on the 20 September 1918, leaving a widow, Kumudbala, who had been married to him for thirty years. It is common ground that the sons of Nabin formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Dayabhaga Law. On the 31 March 1919, Kumudbala, the widow of Makhan, instituted the present suit for partition of the joint family estate. Her mother-in-law Bhubanmohini was joined at the first defendant; her surviving brothers-in-law were the next four defendants; and the sons of her deceased brother-in-law were two other defendants. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit on the 16 February 1922 and made a preliminary decree, awarding the plaintiff a share of specified properties and giving various incidental directions. The present appeal was lodged in this Court by three of the defendants on the 7 June 1922. During the pendency of the appeal, the first defendant Bhubanmohini died on the 24 December 1922. We have heard the appeal on the record and without a printed paper-book, because the parties found themselves in a position of considerable embarrassment, owing to the inability of the Receiver in charge of the estate to collect sufficient funds for the conduct of the litigation. The facts have been placed before us in detail by Mr. Sarbadhikari who has argued the case on behalf of the Appellants very fully and we have also looked into the record for ourselves.

(3.) The preliminary decree made by the Subordinate Judge has been assailed substantially on three grounds, namely, first, that the properties which stand in the name of Bhubanmohini should have been regarded as her self-acquisition and not as part of the family estate liable to be partitioned; secondly, that if the properties which stand in the name of Bhubanmohini are found to have been acquired, not from her own funds but with the money of her husband, they should have been regarded as given to her in absolute right; and, thirdly, that the Subordinate Judge should not have made an order on the defendants for discovery of joint properties other than those included in the suit.