JNANENDRA NATH ROY CHAUDHURY Vs. RAM RANJAN BANERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of certain immoveable properties after declaration of title. These properties originally belonged to one Gagan Chandra Roy Chowdhury who died in 1857 leaving a widow Kritarthamoyee Debi and a daughter by a predeceased wife Rangini. Rangini was married to one Chandra Sekhar Banerjee who resided in the house of his father-in-law. Kritarthamoyee made a gift of all the properties left by her husband Gagan in favour of Chandra Sekhar by a deed, dated the 4 January 1866. At that time the next reversioners of her husband's estate were Rangini who, if she survived the widow, would get a woman's estate, and Bishnu Chandra Banerjee who was the daughter's son of Gagan's great-grand-father. Rangini died sometime after the execution of the deed of gift and Chandra Sekhar apparently remained in possession of the property. On the 16th December 1891 Bishnu Chandra along with another person named Surendra Lai Roy Chowdhury executed a deed of release called a Nadabi Ekrar in favour of Chandra Sekhar with regard to those properties relinquishing their interest, and on the same day two documents were executed by Chandra Sekhar, one in favour of Bishnu Chandra and the other in favour of Surendra Lai giving some properties JO those persons. Surendra was an agnatic relative, of Gagan Chandra Roy Chowdhury Kritarthamoyee died on the 14 February 1919. Bishnu Chandra had predeceased her. The present plaintiffs have brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of the properties left by Gagan on the allegation that they are the next reversionary heirs after the death of Kritarthamoyee. These plaintiffs are the sons of Surendra Lal Roy Chowdhury who died in October 1918. The defendants are the sons of Chandra Sekhar Banerjee by another wife whom he had married after the death of Rangini and grandsons. The defendant No. 6 is the heir of Bishnu Chandra Banerjee and defendant No. 7 is the transferee from defendant No. 6.

(2.) The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge and the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. It is not questioned that the present plaintiffs are the reversionary heirs of Gagan after the death of his widow Kritarthamoyee. The only question that has been argued and which requires consideration in this case is, what is the effect of the transactions we have already referred to with regard to the interest of the plaintiffs.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that Kritarthamoyee's deed of gift in favour of Chandra Sekhar Banerjee could not give a complete title to the donee so as to affect the interest of the plaintiffs. It is urged that at that time Rangini, the daughter, was alive and she was no party to this transaction. The subsequent affirmation of the transaction by Bishnu and Surendra in 1891 cannot confer a good title on the aliance, and in any case a transfer by a widow with the concurrence of the then expectant reversionary heirs only raises a presumption that the transfer by the widow was for legal necessity, and as in the present case the transfer was only by way of gift the defendants cannot rely on any such presumption in this case, and the plaintiffs are therefore, entitled to succeed. The appellants rely mainly on the principle laid down in the case of Rangasami Goundan V/s. Nachiappa Goundan 50 Ind. Cas. 458 : 46 I.A. 72 : 42 M. 523 : 36 M.L.J. 493 : 17 A.L.J. 536 : 29 C.L.J. 539 : 21 Bom. L.R. 640 : 23 C.W.N. 777 : (1919) M.W.N. 262 : 26 M.L.T. 5 : 10 L.W. 105(P.C.), decided by the Privy Council.