IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act to determine the devolution of property in the absence of children and husband.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated November 9, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court at Sealdah, District 24th Parganas (South) in the Title Suit No. 10 of 2010, which was further renumbered as Title Suit No. 11734 of 2014.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected the application dated March 23, 2021.By the said application, the petitioner and one Uma Chowdhury sought to be added as parties, claiming to be the heirs of the deceased defendant No 2. The learned court below rejected such prayer. The learned court held that as the defendant No. 2 died intestate on January 23, 2020 and her husband predeceased her. In terms of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the right of inheritance of a Hindu married woman, who died intestate, without leaving behind either a husband or children, would devolve upon the heirs of the husband. The petitioner was the nephew of the deceased and son of late Ratan Chowdhury (brother of the deceased). Smt. Uma Chowdhury, wife of late Ratan Chowdhury, was the sister-in-law of the deceased.

3. Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the plaint case, the addition was permissible as the plaintiffs denied the marriage between Haridas Dutta and the deceased defendant. The plaint case was that defendant No.1, Haridas Dutta had developed an illicit relationship with the defendant No.2, Krishna Dutta Chowdhury and the property which Krishna Dutta Chowdhury had tried to grab, by impersonating herself as the legally married wife of the defendant No.1 Haridas Dutta, actually belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family. The defendant No. 1 was the Karta. A declaration was prayed for, that Krishna Dutta Chowdhury (since deceased) did not have any right to claim any ownership with regard to the suit property which was part of a Hindu Undivided Family, comprising of the wife of defendant No.1/ plaintiff No.1 (since deceased), plaintiff No.2 and proforma defendant No.3.

4. It was urged that as the plaintiffs themselves claimed that the defendant no.2 was not the legally married wife of the defendant No. 1, the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, would not be applicable. The property should devolve upon the petitioner and his mother. The son and wife of the brother should be added as parties to the suit, as heirs of the deceased defendant No. 2. It was further urged that when the plaintiffs had categorically stated that the defendant No. 2 did not have any right, title and interest, not being the legally married wife of Haridas Dutta, the property of the defendant No2 would devolve upon the petitioner and his mother. Hence, they were necessary parties to the suit. The question of reversion of the property to the family of Late Haridas Dutta would not arise, as per the plaint case.

5. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party submitted that the specific cases of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were that the defendant No. 2 was the legally married wife of late Haridas Dutta. Haridas Dutta had acquired the property from his own funds. By acknowledging the defendant No. 2 to be his legally married wife, a gift deed was executed by the defendant No.1 (since deceased). The defendant No 2 (since deceased) became the absolute owner of the property. The defendant No. 1 denied that the suit property belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family.

6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears to the Court that the suit was filed by the wife and one son of late Haridas Dutta against Haridas Dutta as the defendant No. 1 and Smt. Krishna Chowdhury, daughter of late Kali Shankar Chowdhury as the defendant No. 2. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were the proforma defendants and children of late Haridas Dutta.

7. The plaintiffs’ case was that the suit property belonged to the joint Hindu Undivided Family property. The defen