DINANATH JHA Vs. SABUJ LAL CHAUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the appellant for recovery of possession of certain properties left by his maternal grandfather Jairam Chaudhuri which according to the plaintiff devolved upon him on the death of Mt. Buchi, widow of Jairam. The plaintiff is the son of Mt. Bharabati, who was the daughter of Jairam from another wife Mt. Rambati. The defendants are heirs of one Suratlal who claimed to be a kritrima adopted son of Jairam, a fact which is disputed by the plaintiff in the present suit. The trial Court gave the plaintiff a decree, but the Court of appeal below dismissed the suit holding it to be barred by res judicata by virtue of a decision in a previous suit between Mt. Buchi and Surat Lal wherein Surat Lal was held to be the kritrima son of Jairam.

(2.) In order to appreciate the point taken by the learned lower appellate Court, it will be necessary to state briefly the litigations which followed the death of Jairam. Jairam left surviving him his widow Mt. Buchi and a daughter, Mt. Bharatbati. One Surat Chaudhuri claiming himself to be a kritrima adopted son of Jairam applied for a succession certificate under Act 7 of 1889 to collect debts due to the estate of the deceased Jairam. The widow and the daughter of Jairam at first denied the adoption, but later on admitted it. One Bhinak Lal Chaudhuri claiming himself to be an agnate of Jairam had also filed an objection in that succession certificate case.

(3.) Therefore the case could not be decided on the admission of adoption by the widow and the daughter. The learned District Judge Ultimately decided against the adoption. Surat Lal thereupon instituted a suit to establish his title to the properties of Jairam as his kritrima adopted son. The suit was No. 95 of 1890. It was decreed on 23 September 1890. Bhinak Lal Chaudhuri who had succeeded to defeat Surat's claim to a succession certificate before the District Judge wanted to be impleaded in that suit, but his prayer to be added as party defendant was rejected. He thereupon brought his own suit against Surat Lal. This was No. 133 of 1890.