SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Cal) 116

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das, Guha
SM. CHARU BALA DASI - Appellant
Versus
PROVINCE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D.  256  Of  1949
Decided On : JUNE 12, 1950

Advocates Appeared:
HIRALAL CHAKRAVARTY, JAJNESWAR MAJUMDAR, SYAMADAS BHATTACHARYA

A degraded sister does not inherit the stridhana property of her degraded sister under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law.

Headnote:

SUCCESSION - HINDU LAW - DAYABHAGA - STRIDHANA - SISTER - INHERITANCE - DEGRADED SISTER - LOCUS STANDI OF CROWN - LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - REVOCATION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Charubala, and her sister, Santamani, were widows who had lapsed into prostitution. Santamani died in 1946, leaving behind a property known as No. 6a Nabu Roy Lane, Calcutta. Charubala applied for letters of administration to Santamani's estate, which was granted. However, a Will allegedly executed by Santamani surfaced, leading to a dispute over the rightful heir. The Province of Bengal, claiming title to the estate by escheat, initiated proceedings to revoke the grant of letters of administration to Charubala, arguing that she was not an heir to Santamani and that the grant was obtained by false suggestion.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Charubala was not an heir to her degraded sister, Santamani, under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. Therefore, the Province of Bengal had locus standi to apply for the revocation of the grant of letters of administration to Charubala.

Issues: 1. Whether a degraded sister inherits the stridhana property of her degraded sister under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. 2. Whether the Province of Bengal had locus standi to apply for the revocation of the grant of letters of administration to Charubala.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in Sarnamoyee Bewa v. Secy. of State, 25 Cal. 254 (1898), which held that a sister is not an heir to the stridhana property of her sister under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. The court found that this decision was binding on it and that there was no reason to dissent from it. 2. The court held that the Province of Bengal had locus standi to apply for the revocation of the grant of letters of administration to Charubala because she was not an heir to Santamani and the estate would escheat to the Crown.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

G. N. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a decision of Mr. B. C. Nandy Majumdar, Sub-ordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, dated 12th November 1949, revoking the grant of letters of administration to the appellant.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in controversy and are as follows : The appellant Charubala and Santamani were sisters. They belonged to the Kaibarta caste. They were widows and subsequently lapsed into prostitution. The said Santamani died on 15th January 1946. At the time of her death she owned and possessed premises No. 6a Nabu Roy Lane, Calcutta. On 6th April 1946 the appellant made an application for the grant of letters of administration to the estate of Santamani. This was registered as Letters of Administration case No. 51 of 1946.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER Butto Krishna Saha and Atul Krishna Saba, set up a Will alleged to have been executed by Santamani. This was registered as Letters of Administration case No. 54 of 1946. Charu Bala filed an objection. The application was dismissed on 2nd June 1947 on the finding that the Will was a forgery. But Krishna and Atul filed an appeal to this Court, being F. A. 296 of 1947. In the meantime Letters of Administration Case No. 51 of 1946 had been stayed. This was proceeded with, as a result of the dismissal of Letters of Administration case No. 54 of 1946 and an order for the grant of letters of administration was made on 18th June 1947 and the letters of administration were issued to the appellant.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid First Appeal No. 296 of 1947 was dismissed on 21st January 1949. In the course of the hearing (EX. C-3) this Court directed the issue of a notice on the Senior Government Pleader so that he might appear and take note of the proceedings in view of the fact that Charubala could not be the heir of her sister and the estate may go to the Crown by escheat. Accordingly the respondent Province of Bengal claiming title to the estate of Santamani, initiated proceedings Under Section 263, Succession Act, for revocation of the grant of letters of administration to the appellant on the ground that the grant had been obtained by a false suggestion that Charubala was an heir of Santamani, suppressing the fact that Santamani was a prostitute and on the further ground that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance because no citation was issued to the respondent, the latter being entitled to the estate of Santamani by way of escheat.

( 5 ) THE appellant filed an objection on the ground that the respondent, the applicant for revocation of the grant, had no locus standi to make the application inasmuch as the appellant was an heir to the estate of Santamani, and the respondent could not take by way of escheat.

( 6 ) THE principal issue which arose was whether the appellant succeeded to her sister Santamani.

( 7 ) THE Court below held that the appellant was not an heir to her degraded sister Santamani and on this finding, revoked the grant. The present appeal is directed against the order revoking the grant.

( 8 ) MR. Hiralal Chakravarty appearing for the appellant ultimately limited his contention to the sole ground that under the Dayabhaga law a degraded sister inherits the stridhan of her degraded sister, the parties not belonging to the twice-born class and that accordingly the Crown could not take by way of escheat and had no locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant of letters of administration, to the appellant.

( 9 ) THE right of the Crown to take by escheat the property of a Hindu subject, though a Brahmin, dying without heirs was firmly established in the case of the Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavely Venkata Narrainapah, 8 M. I. A. 500 at pp. 526-527 : (2 W. R. 59 (P. C.) ). An attempt to curtail the right of the Crown by limiting its application only to cases of entire absence of blood relations was put down by this Court in Satish Chandra v. Haridas Mitra, 38 C. W. N. 98 at p. 100 : (A. I. R. (21) 1934 Cal. 399 ).

( 10 ) THE



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top