PROMOTHA NATH RAY CHAUDHURI Vs. DINAMANI CHAUDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised before us in these appeals relate to the plea of limitation.

(2.) Golucknath Ray was the owner of the lands in controversy. He died many years ago leaving him surviving a widow Jahnavi Chaudhurani and after giving her an authority to adopt a son or three sons in succession. In pursuance of the authority to adopt Jahnavi adopted Baikuntnath Ray, but when the latter had attained the age of majority, disputes arose between them as to the management of the estate left by Golucknath. Jahnavi sought to keep the management and control to the exclusion of Baikuntnath. These disputes, however, were settled by an ekrarnama executed on the 22nd Bhadra 1272 B.S., corresponding with 6th September 1S65. Baikuntnath married the plaintiff Dinamani Chaudhurani and on his death, without male issue in 1887, Dinamani, as his widow, became his heiress. Jahnavi, however, continued to be in possession in the same way as before Baikuntnath's death. She died in 1900, and then Dinamani took possession of the estate left by her father-in-law Golucknath and her husband Baikuntnath. During the lifetime of Jahnavi the defendants or their predecessors-in-title had taken possession of the disputed lands and their possession had lasted for more than twelve years before the institution of the suits under appeal.

(3.) If Jahnavi had an estate for life under the ekrarnama of 1865, and if Baikuntnath was the remainderman or reversioner, the death of Jahnavi would be the starting point for calculating the period of limitation under Art. 140 of the Second Schedule of the Limitation Act. The lower Courts have construed the deed as giving Jahnavi an estate for life and have decided the question of limitation in favour of the plaintiff. The contention on behalf of the defendants is, that the ekrarnama did not create an estate for life, but that it merely empowered her to manage during her natural life, that it was only an irrevocable power-of-attorney, the estate continuing to be vested in Baikantnath in the same way as before the execution of the deed. The further contention on their behalf is that, even if the deed be not an irrevocable power-of- attorney, the estate created by it was not strictly a life-estate, and Baikuntnath was neither the remainderman nor the reversioner, and his heiress is not entitled to the benefit of Article 140. The case admittedly does not come under Art. 141, as Jahnavi was not in possession as a Hindu widow or mother. The contention of the defendants, therefore, is that the plaintiff is barred either under Art. 142 or 144 of the Second Schedule.