IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sukumar Bhowmik and others - Appellant
Versus
Subal Bhowmik and others - Respondent
RSA No. 60 of 2007
Decided on : 24-09-2014.
HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937 - APPLICABILITY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND - REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 17(1)(B) - APPLICABILITY TO FAMILY SETTLEMENT - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 14(1) - EFFECT ON LIMITED ESTATE OF HINDU WOMEN.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Subal Bhowmik instituted the suit for declaration of title for the properties in Schedule-B, for partition of properties described in Schedule-C.1 and recovery of possession his share and for perpetual injunction over the properties described in the Schedule-C.1 of the plaint. The plaintiff grand-father namely Kailash Kapali of Nischintapur was the owner in possession of a large tract of land ad measuring 15.89 acres of Nal, Charra and Viti class of land. He had four sons namely Murari, Alanga, Mukunda and Baikuntha. Of them, Murari died before the death of Kailash Kapali leaving his wife Sagari Kapali and only daughter Hemanta Bala Kapali. Hemanta Bala Kapali subsequently died leaving behind her only son, Gopal Chandra Bhowmik. After death of Kailash, the properties left by him was amicably partitioned among the three surviving sons and Sagari Kapali, widow of deceased son, Murari by executing the memoranda of the family settlement denoting partition on 4th Chaitra, 1377 B.S. Through these memoranda, each of the heirs of Kailash Kapali got, according to the plaint, their definite shares of property and the delivery of their plots for purpose of possession was also complete simultaneously.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, as adopted for the State of Tripura by the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, conferred the right of estate on Sagari Kapali alias Bhowmik over the share of the pre-deceased son of Kailash Kapali, her husband. The court further held that the memoranda of family settlement, Exbts.7 and 8, were not mandatorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, as they did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, but rather recorded the partition that had already taken place. The court also held that Sagari Kapali alias Bhowmik's right to estate over the share of the pre-deceased son of Kailash Kapali had become absolute by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that she had acquired the absolute right to transfer.
Issues: 1. Whether the life estate of Sagari under the Provisions of Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 did not extend to the B scheduled land, whether the decision of the learned courts below in respect of Issue No.(iv) is correct holding that Sagari acquired transferable right over the B scheduled land by partition? 2. Is the decision of the Ld. Courts below in respect of issue No.(ii) is sustainable in law as to the admissibility of the unregistered deeds of family settlement dated 4th Chaitra 1377 B.S. marked as Ext.7 & 8 in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, as adopted for the State of Tripura by the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, conferred the right of estate on Sagari Kapali alias Bhowmik over the share of the pre-deceased son of Kailash Kapali, her husband. 2. The memoranda of family settlement, Exbts.7 and 8, were not mandatorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, as they did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, but rather recorded the partition that had already taken place. 3. Sagari Kapali alias Bhowmik's right to estate over the share of the pre-deceased son of Kailash Kapali had become absolute by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that she had acquired the absolute right to transfer.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
S. Talapatra, J.
Against the concurrent findings of fact returned by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.3 in Title Appeal No.42 of 2006 this appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, questions the legality of the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2007. While admitting the appeal, by the order dated 07.09.2007 the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.
"(i) Whether the life estate of Sagari under the Provisions of Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 did not extend to the B scheduled land, whether the decision of the learned courts below in respect of Issue No.(iv) is correct holding that Sagari acquired transferable right over the B scheduled land by partition?
(ii) Is the decision of the Ld. Courts below in respect of issue No.(ii) is sustainable in law as to the admissibility of the unregistered deeds of family settlement dated 4th Chaitra 1377 B.S. marked as Ext.7 & 8 in evidence."
2. The fact relevant for appreciation may briefly be laid at the outset.
The plaintiff, Subal Bhowmik instituted the suit for declaration of title for the properties in Schedule-B, for partition of properties described in Schedule-C.1 and recovery of possession his share and for perpetual injunction over the properties described in the Schedule-C.1 of the plaint.
The plaintiffs grand-father namely Kailash Kapali of Nischintapur was the owner in possession of a large tract of land ad measuring 15.89 acres of Nal, Charra and Viti class of land. He had four sons namely Murari, Alanga, Mukunda and Baikuntha. Of them, Murari died before the death of Kailash Kapali leaving his wife Sagari Kapali and only daughter Hemanta Bala Kapali. Hemanta Bala Kapali subsequently died leaving behind her only son, Gopal Chandra Bhowmik. After death of Kailash, the properties left by him was amicably partitioned among the three surviving sons and Sagari Kapali, widow of deceased son, Murari by executing the memoranda of the family settlement denoting partition on 4th Chaitra, 1377 BS. Through these memoranda, each of the heirs of Kailash Kapali got, according to the plaint, their definite shares of property and the delivery of their plots for purpose of possession was also complete simultaneously. As is evident that the said memoranda so effected, four chhaham Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 fell respectively in the shares of Alanga, Mukunda, Baikuntha and Sagari. The memoranda of the family settlement are the records of specific land falling in the share of each co-sharers and the fact of delivery of possession.
Alanga Kapali had two sons namely Tarani and Tarini Kapali. Baikuntha Kapali had six sons namely Subal Kapali i.e. the plaintiff and Sukumar Kapali, Dilip Kapali, Dulal Kapali and Amrit Lal Kapali, i.e. the defendants No.1 to 4. He had another son namely Rajkumar Bhowmik, since he was predeceased, his son Mithan Bhowmik and daughter Gouri Bhowmik have been impleaded as the defendant Nos.5 and 6. All the sons of Baikuntha Kapali subsequently changed their surname from Kapali to Bhowmik. The share of Sagari Kapali in chhaham No.4 was to the extent of 13 (thirteen) kanies (four) gandas 3 (three) karas and 1 (one) kranta. This land is described in Schedule A of the plaint.
Out of love and affection to the plaintiff namely Subal Bhowmik, Sagari Kapali gifted eight kanies eight gandas three karas two krantas of nal and chara land with specific boundaries by a gift deed executed on 28.02.1980 and gave delivery of possession. This land is described in the schedule B. Subsequently, the plaintiff mutated his name over the gifted land and Khatian No.1391 was created. The mutated land however admeasures 7 (seven) kanies (five) gandas 1 (one) kara 1 (one) kranta and 8 (eight) dhurs corresponding to 2.84 acres. This land is described in the Schedule "C" of the plaint. Similarly, Sagari also made gift deed for 5 (five) kanies and odd nal land in favour of Tarini and Tarani executing a gift deed on the same date i.e. 28.02.1980.
Afte
Gostha Behari v. Haridas Samanta
Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v. Setra Veeravva
K. G. Shivalingappa v. G. S. Eswarappa
Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
Mangal Singh v. Shrimati Rattno
Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham
Nani Bai v. Gita bai Kom Rama Gunge
Ram Charan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi
Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi (Smt)
Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate
Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep. by Manager v. M. Maheswaran
Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debt Singh Bhujil
V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (Dead) by Lrs.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.