BHUPATI NATH CHAKRAVARTY Vs. BASANTA KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Nadia by his decision dated 31 July 1933. The case made in the plaint is that after the death of the plaintiff's father he was given in adoption by his mother Bagala Sundari Debi to the husband of the defendant Basanta Kumari, a gentleman of the name of Kshetra Nath Chakravarti, in July 1926. Kshetra Nath died on 16 November 1928. At the time when plaintiff was given in adoption his age, it is stated, was nine years. It is alleged that he was ill- treated by his adoptive mother, the defendant Basanta Kumari and his mother took him back and thereafter Kshetra Nath executed a deed cancelling the adoption. This deed is dated 23rd April 1927. Shortly after, both Kshetra and Basanta Kumari executed a deed which is termed as a deed of settlement, giving all the properties to certain ancestral deities and for the performance of Durga and Lakshmi pujas.

(2.) The case which the plaintiff makes is that the deed of cancellation of the adoption cannot be sustained in law, and it does not affect his rights which is based on the status of an adopted son. It is alleged that the deed of settlement in favour of the deities is inoperative, because undue influence was exercised on Kshetra and further because the deed was not acted upon. It is also said that Kshetra could not by the deed of settlement, lay down a line of succession of shebaitship contrary to the Hindu law after Jitendra Nath Chakravarty who was one of his agnatic relations and would be the shebait after the death of both Kshetra Nath and Basanta Kumari. It was further stated that the document which created the Debutter was insufficiently stamped and that the said document could not be admitted in evidence so as to affect the rights of the plaintiff without payment of the proper stamp duty and the penalty. We will have to revert to this question about the admissibility of this document later. The defences to the suit were that the document of cancellation was a valid document, and that the deed of settlement in favour of the deities was valid. On these pleadings several issues were framed. The issues are printed at p. 13, part 1 of the paperbook. With regard to issue 2 as to whether the plaintiff was the validly adopted son of the deceased Kshetra Nath Chakravarty the finding of the Subordinate Judge is in favour of the plaintiff. Issue 4 is to the following effect: Are the deed of cancelment dated 10 Baisak 1334 B.S. (23 April 1927) and the deed of gift and settlement dated 21 Baisak 1334 B.S. (4 May 1927) valid and operative documents? Were they or any of them executed under undue influence and coercion? Has any valid right by the deeds vested in the deity Sridhar Thakur and others by right of the said deed of 21 Baisak 1334 B.S. (4 May 1927).

(3.) Issue 5 runs thus: Can the plaintiff claim any maintenance from the estate of the deceased Khetra Nath Chakravarti?