LAWS(PVC)-1936-5-50

MT JAGTARAN KUER Vs. MTGAITRI DEBI

Decided On May 05, 1936
MT JAGTARAN KUER Appellant
V/S
MTGAITRI DEBI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are from a decision of the District Judge of Patna allowing the application of Gaitri Debi and disallowing the application of Jagtaran Kuer for a succession certificate in respect of a debt of about Rs. 1,300 due to one Sheonandan Prasad Chaudhury, who died on 8 February 1934. Gaitri Debi claimed as Sheonandan's widow, and Jagtaran as his daughter. About Jagtaran's parentage there was no dispute at all, but regarding Gaitri's claim, it is alleged on behalf of Jagtaran that she was not a wife but only a cook and concubine of Sheonandan. This was overruled by the learned District Judge, and Gaitri's claim was accepted. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken us into the evidence produced in the case, and laid much stress on the fact that the record does not show that Sheonandan, who was admittedly a Kalwar, belonged to the Jayaswal section of that caste. The point of the criticism is that Jayaswal Kalwars recognise sagai, while evidence was adduced on behalf of Jagtaran that among Kalwars (meaning that section of Kalwars to which Sheonandan belonged) sagai was not recognised. That Gaitri had been married to another husband previously was not disputed. We understand from the learned advocate for the respondent that what happened in the lower Court was that it was common ground during the arguments there that Sheonandan belonged to the Jayaswal section of Kalwars, Indeed it is difficult to understand the reference of the District Judge to Bhattacharjya's Hindu castes and Sects as regards sagai among Jayaswal Kalwars unless that had been the case.

(2.) The evidence that was adduced on behalf of the appellant that Sagai was not recognised in Sheonandan's caste was belied by the actual doings of several of her witnesses. Baldeo Prasad, her second witness, for instance, admitted that Gaitri had been invited to his house on the occasion of the Chhat; and it is not easy to imagine that a young woman of twenty who had lost her former husband, and had been engaged by an old man of the age and position of Sheonandan as a cook and kept as a mistress, was invited on an occasion of this kind out of mere regard to his position. Rambilas Prasad, another witness for Jagtaran, had to admit that Gaitri had been invited to his house to attend the marriage ceremony of his brother Raghubir, and here again the same reflection is inevitable. Whatever the position of Sheonandan, is it likely that though his caste did not recognise the custom of Sagai, Rambilas invited Sheonandan's cook and mistress of twenty years of age to a marriage ceremony? Then there is the husband of Jagtaran. It is unnecessary to refer to his obvious interest in the success of Jagtaran. But the postcard that he admittedly wrote to his father-in-law conveying respects to Sri Maiji and speaking of Naniji as well tells its own tale. There is no dispute that Maiji in the postcard refers to Gaitri.

(3.) It has been suggested by the learned advocate that Gaitri was on that occasion referred to as Maiji (a term of respect) on account of deference to Sheonandan; but is it likely that the deference would be carried so far as to extend to a cook and mistress? As regards the reference to Naniji, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that there is nothing to show that this reference is to the mother of the Maiji; that it may have referred to another maternal grand mother; and that as the postcard asks Sheonandan to write where and how Naniji is, and as the mother of the cook and mistress had no other house to go to, it should be taken that the Naniji, whoever it was, was not the mother of the Maiji. Now Ramchandra Prasad, the son-in-law, who wrote the postcard, was not questioned in detail about the Naniji. At the same time there is no indication in the record that there was at that time in the house of Sheonandan any lady other than Gaitri's mother, who could have answered even approximately to the description of Naniji. But it is not only the actings of these witnesses that belied the story that sagai is not recognized in the caste and that Gaitri was not the wife of Sheonandan but only his cook and mistress. Independent evidence was forthcoming in the story of the postmaster who acted for Sheonandan in the matter of the shares of the Bihar Cotton Mills. That Company made a fourth call for money due on certain shares, and the money was sent by money order the acknowledgment form (Ex. 2) being filled up by or on behalf of the sender. This was actually done by the postmaster, who entered the name of the remitter in the space reserved for the purpose as "Gaitri Debi, wife of Babu Sheonandan Prasad Chaudhury, etc.," and the witness said that he did it at the instance of Sheonandan. It is suggested that Sheonandan for the sake of his own prestige might have been anxious to pass off "Gaitri" as his wife, though in fact she was his cook and mistress. But one does not usually find even old man with young cooks and mistresses buying share for them.