UPENDRA KISHORE MONDAL Vs. NOBOKISHORE MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain transactions entered into by a Hindu widow were not binding upon the reversioners, and for recovery of possession of the properties in suit under the following circumstances.

(2.) One Raghunath had three sons, Thakur Das Madhu Sudan and Hari Narain, each of whom got 1/3d of the estate left by Raghunath. Hari Narain died leaving his widow Bamakali and his 1/3rd share devolved on her. Then Thakur Das died: his 1/3rd share passed to his brother Madhusudan, who thus got 2/3rds share. Then Madhusudan died on the 13th August 1867, leaving his widow Prosanna Kumari, who thus in herited 2/3rds share of the properties. After the death of Madhusudan, Prosanna Kumari settled all the properties left by him excepting the Thakurbati, Kacharibati, dwelling house, tank and garden at the back of the house and a Taluk No. 395 in permanent lease with her brother s son Khetra Mohan Samanta on the 17th September 1869. Bamakali, widow of Hari Narain joined in this settlement and gave a lease of her 1/3rd share to the said Khetra Samanta. Bamakali died on the 14th February 1891. After her death a suit was instituted by Prosanna Kumari as guardian of Basanta Kumar, the alleged adopted son of Madhusudan, for a declaration of Basanta s preferential right to the share of Hari Narain against Kailash and certain other persons who were then the reversionary heirs of Hari Narain The suit was dismissed as the adoption was not proved and the reversioners obtained a decree for costs against Prosanna Kumari

(3.) In execution of the decree for costs, Prosanna Kuman s interest in the property covered by the Ijara was put up to sale and purchased by one Radha Mohan. In the certificate of sale it was stated that only her life-interest was sold.