Back
2003 Supreme(Jhk) 1111
High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : S. J. Mukhopadhaya
BIMLA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondents
CWJC 1384 Of 1991
Decided On : 09/10/2003
M.K.SHAH, N.N.TIVARI, P.K.PRASAD, RAJIV TIWARY, VISHAL TIWARY
The main legal point established in the judgment is the pre-existing right to maintenance of a Hindu female under the Shastric Hindu Law, which was recognized and given statutory backing by the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937.
Headnote:
Hindu Women Right to Property Act - Property Dispute - Act 1937 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 - The court discussed the applicability of provisions of the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937, particularly in relation to the year of death of Baikuntha Jha, and the right to maintenance of a Hindu female under the Shastric Hindu Law. The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the right to maintenance of a Hindu female as a pre-existing right under the Shastric Hindu Law, which existed before the passing of the 1937 Act and the 1946 Act, and was merely recognized and given statutory backing by those acts.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute regarding the inheritance of joint immovable property in a Hindu family. The main contention was the year of death of Baikuntha Jha and the applicability of the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sudama Devi, as a widow in possession of the property, was entitled to maintenance under the Shastric Hindu Law, regardless of the year of Baikuntha Jha's death. The court affirmed the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The main issues were the year of death of Baikuntha Jha, the applicability of the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937, and the right to maintenance of a Hindu female under the Shastric Hindu Law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the right to maintenance of a Hindu female as a pre-existing right under the Shastric Hindu Law, which existed before the passing of the 1937 Act and the 1946 Act, and was merely recognized and given statutory backing by those acts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate orders, and affirmed the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff.
S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.
( 1 ) THIS writ application has been preferred by the petitioners against the appellate order dated 8th June, 1989 passed by 3rd respondent and the second appellate order dated 22nd October, 1990 passed by 4th respondent. The appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by contesting respondents and the second appellate authority affirmed the appellate order.
( 2 ) TO appreciate the case, it is better to reproduce the undisputed genealogy of the family of petitioners as shown hereunder:
( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that in ganzers survey and settlement, Ram Nath Jha and Umanath Jha sons of Matuk Nath Jha were shown as recorded tenant in respect to lands in dispute as detailed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The brothers constituting a Joint hindu Mitakashara Family died in estate of jointness in the year, 1350 fasali (1943) and 1351 fasali (1944) respectively. Baikuntha Jha, son of Umanath Jha predeceased his father in the year 1349 fasali (1942) leaving behind, his father, his widow, Sudama Devi and two daughters, namely, Kamla Devi and Bimla Devi (petitioner No. 1 ). Umanath Jha died in the year 1943 leaving behind his predeceased sons widows Sudama Devi as his legal heir. Further case of the petitioners is that ramnath Jhas interest in the joint immovable property devolved upon his sons, grandson and great-grand-son. Sudama Devi died leaving behind her daughter (petitioner No. 1), who succeeded the interest in the joint property which her mother possessed as the other daughter Kamla had predeceased her mother. Originally, Sudama Devi claimed partition of properties in dispute vide Title Partition suit No. 64/64 in the Court of Assistant settlement Officer, Godda but after death of sudama Devi, the petitioners were brought on record to prosecute the suit.
( 4 ) THE case of contesting respondents was that Baikuntha Jha died in the year 1342 fasali, corresponding to year 1935 and his undivided interest in the coparcener properties passed to his surviving coparcener. They alleged that the plaintiff by means of interpolation made in the plaint changed it as 1347 fasali from 1342 fasali after filing of the plaint. They accepted the correctness of the genealogy but denied the petitioners claim of any share of property.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to petitioners, during the pendency of the suit, they (plaintiff) had filed an application in the Court on 17th December, 1970 for correction of year of death of baikuntha Jha, which typed out as 1342 fasali. It was allowed by the Court to be corrected as 1349 fasali. In the Court below, the main question arose for consideration was regarding the year of death of Baikuntha Jha as the respondents took plea that the applicability of provisions of "hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937" (Act 1937 for short) would depend upon the fact as to when Baikuntha Jha died. After examination of witnesses and taking into consideration the evidence, oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties, the 1st Court decreed the suit with the following findings :" (a) Defendants have not been able to prove that there had been interpolation in the plaint. (b) Baikuntha Jha died in the year 1942. (c) Claim of plaintiff is not barred by limitation. (d) Claim of intervener Krishna mohan Mishra in respect of Dag no. 267, Jamabandi No. 56 is accepted. (e) Plaintiff is entitled to reliefs as prayed for. "
( 6 ) THE 1st appellate Court in Title Appeal no. 49/89 held that there had been interpolation in the plaint and concluded that baikuntha Jha died in the year 1935. The second appeal preferred by petitioners being appeal No. 18/89 in the Court of Commissioner, santhal Paragana Division, Dumka was dismissed and affirmed the finding of the 1st appellate Court. This Court under writ jurisdiction can not determine the date of death of Baikuntha Jha. There being two concurrent findings by the appellate Court and the second appellate Court that there was an interpolation in th
