SANTALA BEWA Vs. BADASWARI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants before us and the facts of the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen are, shortly stated, as follows: The plaintiff is the daughter of one Lalua Singh, who held a six pies share in ,a certain jote. The defendant No. 1, Santala Bewa, is Lalua's second wife. On Lalua's death she inherited the share of Lalua in the said jote. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 married again, according to the custom of the Rajbansis and subsequently she sold the said six pies share in the jote to defendant No. 2, who again sold the same to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff has brought the present suit for recovery of possession of the said six pies share on the ground that the defendant No. 1 by her re-marriage had forfeited her right to the said share and that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by their purchase had acquired no right and title to the same. The defendant No. 1 in her defence stated that there was a special custom among the Rajbansis that a widow did not forfeit her right to her husband's property by her re-marriage.

(2.) The Munsif held that the Rajbansis were not Hindus, and that the parties were governed not by Hindu law, but by custom and that among the Rajbansis a widow could keep a Dangua, and by keeping one she was not divested of her former husband's property. He accordingly held that the defendant No. 1 did not forfeit her first husband's property by her remarriage and accordingly dismissed the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Darjeeling and the latter held that the special custom referred to it by the Munsif had not been satisfactorily established. It was also held by the learned Deputy Commissioner that the Rajbansis were governed by the ordinary Hindu law and that, therefore, the defendant No. 1 forfeited the estate inherited from her first husband by her re-marriage, and consequently the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 acquired no title to the property in suit by purchase from the defendant No. 1.