BHUPENDRA NATH BHOSE Vs. GOONENDRA NATH BHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff, Goonendra brought a suit against two defendants originally his stepbrothers Bhupendra and Jnanendra. Janendra has since died pending the suit; but I will omit for the sake of simplicity the complications caused by that event. The plaintiff's case is that his father Wooppendra Nath Bhose was married twice, that by his first wife he had two sons, namely, the defendants, and that, after the death of his first wife, he married one Sushila Sundari Dassi and by her he had two children the elder of the two being a daughter and the younger being the plaintiff. It seems that, in the year 1905 Woopendra practically retired from business and his business affairs were managed by Bhupendra and Jnanendra. In the same year, Sushila Sundari died. Woopendra survived her by some four years till 1909 and, in 1910, the plaintiff attained majority. These are the broadest facts of the family history with which we are concerned.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that when his mother Sushila Sundari died in 1905 she died possessed of a good many valuable personal ornaments of which certain descriptions have been given in the course of the evidence. These ornaments, according to the plaintiff, were acquired by his mother in such a way as to be her ajautuka stridhan and the plaintiff undertakes to show that they were ajautuka stridhan because otherwise, if they were jautuka stridhan, they would belong not to the plaintiff but to his sister Srimati Saroj Basini Dassi. That is the first point in the case. The defendants, in addition to putting the plaintiff to proof of the existence of the ornaments and the jewellery and of the fact that they were acquired so as to become Susila Sundari's ajautuka stridhan, deny altogether that any such property came at any time to their hands. The learned Judge had said that they put forward four different inconsistent cases and he has disbelieved the defendants and has believed the plaintiff.

(3.) It becomes necessary in this case to state as matters of simple fact what the plaintiff's evidence establishes because a great difficulty has arisen in this case from the fact that legal interpretations have been somewhat rashly put upon facts without sufficiently considering the distinction between the facts themselves and the legal results of certain facts. I am quite satisfied that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff entitled the learned Judge to hold, and that he meant to hold the following facts: First of all, the learned Judge had believed the evidence (which is the only evidence upon the point) given by Kusum Kumari Dassi as regards the way in which the plaintiff's mother came to be possessed of the articles in question and as to the fact that these articles came to the hands of the defendants. The lady explains that Sushila Sundari obtained the articles in question in two ways: first, she says they were presents given by the witness herself Kusum Kumari before Susila's marriage to Woopendra and, secondly, she says they were presents which Susila got from Woopendra after the marriage. Now, as to that when the Hindu Law is examined, it turns out that the difference between ajautuka and jautuka stridhan is a matter which requires some little consideration. Jautuka stridhan is not entirely confined, it would appear, to presents given actually before the nuptial fire. But the limits within which such presents become jautuka stridhan are somewhat narrow. Kusum Kumari, the grandmother, having given her evidence in the manner I have described for the plaintiff is in no way cross-examined with a view to show that the particular facts to which she is speaking bring the case on a careful examination to a case of jautuka stridhan. Her evidence is left exactly as she gives it a broad statement -- gift from herself before the marriage, gift from her husband after the marriage. In my opinion, it either was not in the contemplation of the defendants at the time of the hearing to contest seriously the nature of this stridhan or else they felt themselves wholly unable to cope with this lady and cross- examine her so as to throw doubt upon the evidence which she gave. It has to be remembered that the defendant's case is, that no such ornaments ever came to their hands. So far as I know, they do not admit anywhere that to their own knowledge any such property was in existence at any time. Indeed, their case suffers seriously from the attempt which the defendants made to show that to the best of their knowledge this lady who married a man of some considerable wealth and position had no ornaments at all. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Judge's finding that this was ajautuka stridhan should not be disturbed. The only reason why his finding requires to be considered at all is that, in giving his reasons for supposing that the ornaments possessed by this lady were of substantial value, he does say in his judgment that Woopendra would be unlikely to give his bride cheap or insignificant presents. It does not seem to me that the learned Judge's attention there was being directed to the exact legal distinction in Hindu Law which divides jautuka stridhan and ajautuka stridhan and the fact that he uses the word "bride" does not lead me to suppose that he has come to the conclusion after considering the matter that these presents were given at the exact time of the marriage. In any event, looking to the uncontradicted and simple evidence given in the course of the case, it appears to me that the plaintiff has made out his title by making out that this is property which would come to him and would not go to his sister. I need not say that, in no event,, would it come to the defendants.