GUNJESHWAR KUNWAR Vs. DURGA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree, dated May 7, 1912, of the High Court at Calcutta, which reversed a decree, dated March 31, 1908, of the officiating Subordinate Judge of Bankipur and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, is a minor and is suing by her next friend. The defendants are Durga Prashad Singh, an uncle of the plaintiff, Musammat Harbans Kunwar, her mother, and three assignees of the defendant Durga Prashad Singh.

(2.) THE suit was brought on July 21, 1906, to obtain a declaration that a compromise which was entered into between Durga Prashad Singh, who is the first defendant in this suit, and Musammat Harbans Kunwar, and a decree dated August 30, 1904, which was made in pursuance of that compromise, are not binding upon the plaintiff; a declaration that the plaintiff's father, Bishamhhar Prashad Singh, was at the time of his death separate from his brother, the defendant Durga Prashad Singh; a declaration that the defendant Musammat Harbans Kunwar, by reason of her conduct in entering into the said compromise, had ceased to be entitled to any rights in the estate of her deceased husband, Bishambhar Prashad Singh, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the present possession of that estate; a declaration of the plaintiff's reversionary right in case she should not be held entitled to the possession of the property in dispute during her mother's lifetime; and for other relief. The Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a declaration that the compromise and the decree of August 30, 1904, which was made on the basis of that compromise, were not binding upon her and, on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to get possession of the property during the lifetime of her mother, dismissed the suit so far as the claims for possession and mesne profits were concerned. The High Court in Appeal by its decree dismissed the suit. From that decree of the High Court this appeal has been brought.

(3.) IF Bishambhar Prashad Singh was not disqualified from sharing in the family properties, he was entitled on separation to a moiety of the property of the joint Hindu family, and if in fact he did, in such circumstances, separate from his brother Durga Prashad Singh, Musammat Harbans Kunwar was on his death entitled to a Hindu widow's interest in his moiety, and on her death the plaintiff would inherit to her father. By the compromise which is in question in this suit Musammat Harbans Kunwar for herself and her daughter, the plaintiff, abandoned all claim to the property of Bishambhar Prashad Singh, admitted that Bishambhar Prashad Singh had been born blind, and was consequently excluded by Hindu law from all right of inheritance; that he and his brother Durga Prashad Singh had not separated; and that Durga Prashad Singh was entitled to the whole family property by survivorship. By the compromise Durga Prashad Singh gave to Musammat Harbans Kunwar six villages, representing about one-fourth of the family property, for her life, with remainder to the plaintiff, and undertook to pay certain debts.