SRIMATI PADMABUTI DASSI Vs. BONOMALI SEAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit to recover (1) Nos. 35 and 33, Blackburn Lane, (2) No. 44, Mechua Bazar Street, (3) a two-thirds undivided share, in No. 1, Old China Bazar Street, and (4) the sale proceeds of Nos. 11, 12 and 13, Ram Mohun Ghose s Lane, under the following circumstances. One Ananta Ram Seal died on the 4th March 1907 intestate possessed of the premises in suit, leaving a son the defendant Bonomali Seal. Bonomali had a son Durga Charan, who died on the 13th July 1918 without issue but leaving two widows, the plaintiffs. On the 2nd April 1908 Sreemutty Debjani Dassi petitioned this Court for an enquiry as to whether Bonomali Seal was or was not of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs. On the 6th April 1908 an order was made on this petition which was entitled " In the matter of Lunacy Act XXXIV of 1858 and In the matter of clause 17 of the Charter and In the matter of Bonomali Seal a lunatic " by Woodroffe, J., directing an enquiry to be held before him as to whether (inter alia) Bonomali Seal was or was not of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and the time during which he had been of unsound mind. Woodroffe, J., on the 27th April 1908, found and reported (inter alia) that Bonomali Seal was of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and that he had been of unsound mind for about fifteen years, and on the same day Srimati Debjani Dassee and one Kartick were appointed Committees of his person and estate. I should state that the report found that Bonomali Seal was entitled to the premises in Suits Nos. 11, 12 and 13, Ram Mohun Ghose s Lane, being then unsold and the whole of No. 1, Old China Bazar Street, being stated to belong to him.

(2.) Under the circumstances set out above the plaintiffs contend that as Bonomali was of unsound mind when his father died, he was incapable of inheriting and that the property in suit passed to Durga Charan as whose heirs they claim it.

(3.) The following issues were raised, (1) Is the. suit barred by limitation as to the sums as mentioned in page 7 of the plaint? (2) Are the plaintiffs estopped from asserting that Bonomali is not entitled to the estate? (3) Was Bonomali excluded from inheritance by reason of insanity? Was his mental condition such as to exclude him from the inheritance? (4) In the event of the plaintiffs claim succeeding, what is the suitable maintenance and residence to which the defendant is entitled?