Back
1950 Supreme(Cal) 115
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. DAS,GUHA, JJ.
Charu Bala Dasi
Versus
Province of West Bengal
A. F. O. D. No. 256 of 1949
Decided On : 12-06-1950
Hiralal Chakravarty and Syamadas Bhattacharya - for Appellant.Jajneswar Majumdar - for Respondent.
A degraded sister does not inherit the stridhana property of her degraded sister under the Bengal School of Hindu Law.
Headnote:
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 263 - REVOCATION OF GRANT OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - LOCUS STANDI OF THE CROWN - DEGRADED SISTER NOT AN HEIR UNDER DAYABHAGA LAW - CROWN ENTITLED TO ESTATE BY ESCHEAT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Charubala, applied for letters of administration to the estate of her deceased sister, Santamani, who was a prostitute. The application was granted, but later revoked on the ground that Charubala was not an heir to her sister and that the estate should go to the Crown by escheat. Charubala appealed, arguing that she was an heir to her sister under the Dayabhaga law and that the Crown had no locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a degraded sister does not inherit the stridhana property of her degraded sister under the Bengal School of Hindu Law. Therefore, the appellant was not an heir to her sister Santamoni and the Crown had locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant of letters of administration.
Issues: 1. Whether a degraded sister is an heir to her degraded sister under the Dayabhaga law? 2. Whether the Crown has locus standi to apply for revocation of the grant of letters of administration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in Sarnamoyees case, 25 Cal 254 : (2 CWN 97), which held that a sister is no heir to a female proprietor under the Bengal School of Hindu Law, even if they both lapse into prostitution. 2. The court also considered the texts of the Dayabhaga, which do not include sisters as heirs to a woman's stridhana property. 3. The court further noted that the judicial decisions in this Court have taken a view different from that of Jagannatha, who opined that a woman's kinsmen on the father's and mother's side succeed to her stridhana according to the Bengal School.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order revoking the grant of letters of administration was upheld.
G. N. DAS, J. :- 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 1916. At the time of the 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 Saha, set up a Will alleged to have been executed by Santamani. This was registered as Letters of Administration Case No. 54 of 1346. Charu Bila 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 1917 and the letters of administration were issued to the appellant.
4. The aforesaid First Appeal No. 296 of 1917 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 S. 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 MIA 500 at pp. 526-527 : (2 WR 69 (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 pat down by this Court is Satish Chandra v. Haridas Mitra, 38 CWN 93 at p. 100 : (AIR (21) 1934 Cal 399).
10. The question, therefore, remains whether the appellant is an heir to he
