Skip to content


Parbati Dasi Vs. Raja Baikuntha Nath De - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1914)16BOMLR101
AppellantParbati Dasi
RespondentRaja Baikuntha Nath De
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....the absence of evidence that the junior member had any separate funds or that the property in question was purchased with money belonging to him, the presumption is clear and decisive that it was acquired by the head of the family in the name of the junior member and that it was not self-acquired property of the junior member.;dhurm das pandey v. mussumat shama soondri dibiah (1843) 3 m.i.a. 2 and gopeekrist gosain v. gungapersaud gosain (1854) 6 m.i.a. 53 followed. - - they have held that she has failed to prove that the (ka) properties were p......a declaration that certain properties included in schedule (ka) attached to the plaint were the self-acquired properties of her father which devolved upon her after the death of her mother, annapurna, and for the usual consequential relief in respect thereof. she also alleged that rup charan survived his father, and that she is entitled to the one-third share in raghunath's estate which vested in rup charan on raghunath's death.3. the defendants, on the other hand, alleged that rup charan predeceased his father and that the (ka) properties were acquired by raghunath in the name of rup charan, and were not the self-acquired properties of rup charan.4. both the courts in india have-concurrently found against the plaintiff the facts on which she bases her claim. they have held that she.....
Judgment:

Ameer Ali, J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bengal, dated the 27th of July 1906, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in the Province of Orissa, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

2. The parties are Hindus governed by the Dayabhaga law, and are descended from one Raghunath De. Raghunath had three sons, Rup Charan, Sonatan and Shyamanand, who admittedly formed a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff is the daughter of Rup Charan, and she brought this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that certain properties included in Schedule (ka) attached to the plaint were the self-acquired properties of her father which devolved upon her after the death of her mother, Annapurna, and for the usual consequential relief in respect thereof. She also alleged that Rup Charan survived his father, and that she is entitled to the one-third share in Raghunath's estate which vested in Rup Charan on Raghunath's death.

3. The defendants, on the other hand, alleged that Rup Charan predeceased his father and that the (ka) properties were acquired by Raghunath in the name of Rup Charan, and were not the self-acquired properties of Rup Charan.

4. Both the Courts in India have-concurrently found against the plaintiff the facts on which she bases her claim. They have held that she has failed to prove that the (ka) properties were P.C. acquired by her father out of his own funds and that it had been established that Raghunath survived Rup Charan. They have accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

5. As it is not their Lordships' rule to interfere in cases in which there are concurrent findings of fact, it has been argued by Mr. Ross, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the Courts below erred in not drawing proper conclusions from the documentary evidence of the plaintiff. In other words, he contended that as the conveyances stood in Rup Charan's name the Courts ought to have presumed that the (ka) properties were his self-acquired properties until disproved by the defendants.

6. The principle applicable to this class of cases where there is a dispute whether a property standing in the name of a junior member of a Hindu family was his self-acquisition was enunciated so long ago as 1843 in Dhurm Das Pandey v. Musumat Shama Soondri Dibiah (1843) 3 M.I.A. 229 where Lord Campbell said :-' The criterion in these cases in India is to consider from what source the money comes with which the purchase money is paid.' This principle was reaffirmed in 1854 in Gopeekrist Gosain v. Gungapersaud Gosain (1854) 6 M.I.A. 53.

7. In the present case both the Courts below have found that there was no evidence that Rup Charan had any separate funds or that the properties in dispute were purchased with money belonging to him. In the absence of such evidence the presumption is clear and decisive that they were acquired by the father in the name of the son, and that they were not the self-acquired properties of Rup Charan.

8. On the whole their Lordships are of opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. And they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //