D. C. CHAKRAVORTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Asansol whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court at Asansol were modified.

( 2 ) SM. Kishori Bala Mondal, the appellant, instituted against the respondents a title suit praying for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for order of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession.

( 3 ) THE facts relevant for purpose of this appeal are as follows: the suit land originally belonged to one Krishna Majhi who died about 42/43 years ago leaving his second wife Rati Bala as his sole heiress. The plaintiff Sm. Kishori Bala is the daughter of said Krishna Majhi by his second wife said Rati Bala. The first wife of Krishna Majhi pre-deceased him. On the death of Rati Bala, according to the plaintiff, the latter as the sole heiress inherited the suit property and has since then been possessing the same. Krishna Majhi had another daughter named Sasthibala by his first wife. Krishna Majhi died before the Hindu Succession Act came into force and Rati Bala died after the said Act came into force. On the death of Rati Bala her interest in the suit property devolved on her only daughter Kishori Bala, the plaintiff. The said Sasthibala or her sons and daughters who are defendants had neither any title to nor possession in the suit property or any part thereof. As the defendants were threatening the plaintiff with dispossession, the present suit had to be brought.

( 4 ) THE defendant's case is that both Rati Bala and Sasthibala used to possess all the properties left by Krishna Majhi and from after the death of Sasthibala the defendants have been possessing almost half of the suit property as her heirs.

( 5 ) THE learned Munsif declared plaintiff's title to the suit land and restrained the defendants permanently from interfering with her possession of suit land excepting the suit tank recorded in plot No. 925/1101. He, however, dismissed the plaintiff's prayer for permanent injunction in respect of the said tank.

( 6 ) ON appeal the learned Subordinate Judge modified the Judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge declared plaintiff's eight anna share and not 16 anna share as declared by the learned Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge also disallowed the plaintiff's prayer for permanent injunction.

( 7 ) THE only question that came up for determination before the learned Subordinate Judge is whether on the death of Ratibala the plaintiff alone or the plaintiff along with the defendants became entitled to the property left by Ratibala which she in her turn got from her husband as his sole heiress. Admittedly, the legal position is that when Krishna Majhi died his property devolved on Ratibala who was his sole heiress under the Hindu Law which was in force at the time of the death of Krishna Majhi. Further, there is no dispute regarding the fact that when Ratibala died the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, already came into operation. There is further no dispute regarding the legal position that in view of the provisions of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Ratibala came to have absolute ownership in the suit property in which, before the Hindu Succession Act came into force, she had, according to old Hindu law, a limited interest or in other words widow's estate. On whom the property left by Ratibala would devolve is the question before me. In determining that question the provisions of S. 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act have to be applied. Section 15 of the said Act is as follows: ?15 (1) - The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in S. 16 - (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) Thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) Fourthly, up

Click Here to Read the rest of this document