JUDGEMENT :- The plaintiff who is a minor filed the suit through her next friend, maternal grand-mother for a declaration that the money lying in the special Savings Bank Account No.14/1168 with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Juhu Branch, Bombay exclusively belongs to her deceased mother a her self-acquired and self-earned separate property and in view of the provisions of S.25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 daughter alone is entitled to get the said amount.

2. It appears to be an admitted position that defendant No.1 Sushilkumar was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code in Sessions Case No.196 of 1980 decided on 29th of Oct., 1980. After appreciating all the evidence on record the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that accused Sushilkumar used a sharp-edged weapon for inflicting various injuries on deceased Revati. While inflicting the injuries he chose vital part of the body and used considerable force. The Sessions Court further found that in view of the number of injuries and their location considered together with other factors clearly indicate that accused Sushilkumar did the act with intention of causing the death of Revati. After recording this finding the learned Judge ultimately came to the conclusion that he committed the said act of assault while be was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation given to him by deceased Revati. As a result of this finding he was convicted of the offence punishable under S.304 Part I of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. In the suit filed on behalf of the minor it was contended that as the defendant No.1 was responsible for committing murder of deceased Revati, he is not entitled to succeed to the property of deceased in view of the provisions of S.25 of the Hindu Succession Act. In this suit an injunction was also sought against defendant No.1 restraining him from withdrawing the amount from the Bank. The trial Court framed necessary issues and ultimately came to the conclusion on the strength of the affidavit filed by the guardian and next friend of the plaintiff that money lying in the special saving bank account exclusively belonged to the deceased mother of the plaintiff. He also came to the conclusion that in view of the conviction of defendant No.1 under S.304, Part I of the I.P.C. he is not disqualified under S.25 of the Hindu Succession Act. So far as the amount of Rs. 6,800/- is concerned, which according to the plaintiff belonged to her being proceeds of the lottery prizes earned in he lottery tickets purchased in her name and credited in the account in the Bank, the learned Judge held that for that purpose the plaintiff will have to pursue a separate remedy as such a declaration cannot be granted in the present suit as framed. In view of these findings the learned Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 5831-31 p. only and also granted leave to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit in respect of the amount of Rs. 6800/-. He also granted necessary reliefs including that of permanent injunction to the extent of Rs. 5831-31 p.

3. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Defendant No.1 has also filed a cross-objection challenging the finding recorded against him and has also explained the circumstances under which he remained absent in the trial Court and has prayed that the ex parte decree should be set aside and he mould be given an opportunity to defend the suit on merits. According to him he could not remain present in Court because he was detained in jail and the Counsel appearing for him remained absent on the date of hearing.

4. Shri Pathak, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended before me that the interpretation put forward by the learned Judge upon the provisions of S. 25 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document