HARIDAS CHATTERJEE Vs. MANMATHA NATH MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having received so much assistance from counsel on both sides in this case, from Mr. H.D. Bose, the most experienced Hindu lawyer at the Bar, for the plaintiffs, and counsel, both senior and junior for the various defendants I would have liked to consider my judgment. I do not do so because in the circumstances of this case, it is desirable that parties should have my decision before my impending departure. I state the facts only so far as may be necessary to explain the points of law which have been discussed before me This case and the two cases which follow in the list turn on the effect of an adoption made somewhere about 1850. There was a man called Ramgopal who died in 1860 leaving a very valuable estate. He had a brother Shib Kisen married to a lady Annapurna. Ramgopal had only daughters. One daughter married Shib Nath Chatterjee, and they had a son Noni Mohan. Shib Kristo and Annapurna had no male child. They therefore adopted or purported to adopt Noni Mohan. In the course of the arguments and discussing the points of law involved I used the following symbols. Shib Kristo Banerjee the adopting father is A. His wife Annapurna, the adopting mother X. Shib Nath Chatterjee, the natural father, B, and his wife Y. Noni Mohan is Z, and as adopted son ZI. Ramgopal left a widow Jaikali. The widow's interest lasted for a long period of time, that is until 1920. During that period there were very extensive alienations, alienations by the widow either of her widow's interest or of absolute interest on the ground of necessity, which alienations were in point of fact to X (Annapurna). There were also extensive alienations by X (Annapurna) as transferee in respect of the transactions I have mentioned, and by ZI (Noni Mohan qua adopted son) and his successors in interest.

(2.) The defendants are such alienees, and the plaintiffs seek to dispossess them as reversioners to the estate of Ramgopal on the death of Jaikali. In this case the position is somewhat peculiar, because Noni Mohan would be the heir to Ramgopal's estate, firstly as Z, i.e., in his capacity of natural son of B (Shib Nath Chatterjee), and alternatively as ZI (adopted son of A Shib Kristo) to the exclusion of any other person. The persons therefore claiming to be reversioners, i.e., the plaintiffs and certain of the defendants in this suit, and the plaintiffs in the other two suits, can establish no right in respect of the estate of Ramgopal unless it can be shown that Noni Mohan was neither the natural son of Shib Nath nor the adopted son of Shib Kristo. Now this is the essential point. I considered that it should be determined first. The point made is quite shortly as follows:

(3.) The plaintiffs seek to get rid of Z and ZI by: (1)setting up an adoption; (2)asserting that the adoption was bad; (3)denying that the adoption was too bad, i.e., had the effect of cutting him off from his own family without introducing him to the new family. I am purposely using non--legal language. In point of fact, as we shall see, that what they actually seek to do is to get him quite out of his own family and half into the new family. These contentions are the subject matter of the first three issues which were raised and which I have tried. The plaintiffs are entitled to give further evidence on the other issues of which there are two classes, issues which are essential to establish that the plaintiffs would be, if the point of law succeeds, the reversioners, a matter depending upon pedigree and dates of death; and another class of issues appropriate to the various defendants in connection with their respective transfers. Neither of those matters have been dealt with. I only purport to deal with the point of law.