LAWS(PVC)-1914-4-90

PROTAP CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. SARAT KAMINI DEBYA

Decided On April 30, 1914
PROTAP CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY Appellant
V/S
SARAT KAMINI DEBYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff. He claimed as heir of one Madhab Chakravarty and to be entitled as such to 1/3rd share of certain property which he alleged was held by Madhab and his two brothers, Jadab and Tara Nath, as joint family property.

(2.) Madhab died in 1851, leaving a widow who survived till 1903. The plaintiff s case was that his right of possession as reversionary hair began upon the death of the widow. The property in dispute consists of two plots of land which admittedly had since 1879 been in the possession of Madhab s brother, Tara Nath, till the death of that brother in 1891 and thereafter in the possession of Tara, Nath s daughter as separata property. There was no evidence when the disputed property was acquired, and admittedly there is no presumption, that it was acquired during the life-time of Madhab. In so far as it was necessary to the plaintiff s case to prove that the property was acquired in the life-time of Madhab it must he held that he failed to prove it.

(3.) The facts of the case may thus be stated as follows : The two brothers, Jadab and Tara Nath, and the widow of the deceased brother, Madhab, were living together until the death of Jadab in 1865. Jadab died without heirs find such property as he had was inherited by his brother Tara Nath. Madhab s widow, Bama Sundari, left the family dwelling house and enjoyed a separate share of her hus-. band s property from the year 1879, she did not after that date at any rate lay any claim to or enjoy any sort of possession of the properties which formed the subject of the present suit. These properties, however, admittedly were acquired at some time prior to the date when the widow left the family dwelling house in 1879. There is also the fact that at some time before 1879 Tara Nath was granted by the zemindar the brahmatten of one of the plots which formed the subject of the suit, and the finding is that this was a grant made personally to him in consideration of his being the priest.