GAYA PROSAD KARAN Vs. BAKYA MANI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case which has given rise to this appeal are briefly these:

(2.) One Kashi Nath was the owner of some property. He died leaving three sons, defendants 1 and 2 and Trailakhya, the husband of the plaintiff. Trailakhya died when the plaintiff was a little girl of 14. And after Trailakhya's death and after defendants 1 and 2 had separated in mess, plaintiff began residing for most of her time at her father's house and would occasionally come to live in the house of her father-in-law While in her father-in-law's house, she was well cared for by her brothers-in-law and maintained out of the usufruct of the ejmali property and while residing at her father's place, she was given at times some profits by defendants 1 and 2 for her necessary expenses, and she used to be given also according to the direction of defendants 1 and 2 some profits from the bhagchasis of some properties other than those in suit. Plain tiff continued to be in possession of the ejmali property in that manner until 1329 B.S., when defendants 1 and 2 began to illtreat her and when she with her father's help attempted to possess separately the 1/3 share in the property, the defendents dispossessed her in Jaistha 1330 by refusing to allow plaintiff's father to possess the same and denying, the plaintiff's title. Thereafter the plaintiff gradually came to know that defendants 1 and 2 had executed kabalas in favour of defendants 3 to 14 in respect of the property in suit. On these facts, the plaintiff who is a pardanashin Hindu lady, brought the suit for a declaration of her title to a third share in the property and for joint possession of the same.

(3.) The defence inter alia was, that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were completely separate in 1313, that in 1313, plaintiff surrendered the property allotted to her to defendants 1 and 2 but taking advantage of the absence of a deed of surrender, she again claimed her share in 1315 but was driven out by defendants 1 and 2. The plea of limitation was another point raised by the defence. This defence, however, was negatived by both the Courts below and both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff's suit was in time, gave her a decree. Defendants 3 to 11 have appealed to this Court.