Skip to content


Jogendra Nath Saha Vs. Collector of Faridupur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in30Ind.Cas.36
AppellantJogendra Nath Saha
RespondentCollector of Faridupur
Excerpt:
bengal wills and intestacy regulation (v of 1799), section 7, scope of - district judge's jurisdiction--gift, claim under, if valid. - .....of regulation v of 1799. it appears that one soudamini peshakar, a woman of the town, died leaving personal property of some value. the police appeared on the scene immediately after her death. the petitioner claimed the property in dispute, on the allegation of a gift to him by soudamini who was in his keeping. the police submitted a report to the magistrate; he, thereupon, directed the matter to placed before the district judge, who initiated the present proceedings under section 7 of regulation v of 1799. the district judge has taken evidence and has overruled the claim, on the ground that the gift was in the nature of a donatio mortis causa and was not operative in law. on behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the district judge had no jurisdiction to take proceedings.....
Judgment:

1. We are invited in this Rule to consider the legality of an order made ostensibly under Section 7 of Regulation V of 1799. It appears that one Soudamini Peshakar, a woman of the town, died leaving personal property of some value. The Police appeared on the scene immediately after her death. The petitioner claimed the property in dispute, on the allegation of a gift to him by Soudamini who was in his keeping. The Police submitted a report to the Magistrate; he, thereupon, directed the matter to placed before the District Judge, who initiated the present proceedings under Section 7 of Regulation V of 1799. The District Judge has taken evidence and has overruled the claim, on the ground that the gift was in the nature of a donatio mortis causa and was not operative in law. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 7. We are of opinion that this contention is well founded and must prevail. That section is in these terms: 'The Judges of the Zilla Courts, on receiving information the any person within their respective jurisdictions has died interstate, leaving personal property, and that there is no claimant to such property, are to adopt such measures as may be necessary for the temporary care of the property.' It has been contended by the learned Government Pleader that the claimant mentioned in the section is a person who claims the property as an heir of the deceased. We are not disposed to put such a narrow interpretation upon the section. There was undoubtedly a claimant in this case, namely, the petitioner, whose claim was found to be prima facie good by the Police officer. Before the District Judge can assume jurisdiction under Section 7, two facts must be established, namely, first, that the person has died intestate, and, secondly, that there is no claimant to the personal property left by him. The second condition has obviously not been fulfilled. The Rule mast consequently be made absolute and the order of the Court below discharged. The petitioner is entitled to his costs in this Court. We assess the hearing foe at one gold mohur.


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