Brajakishor Mitter Mazumdar vs Radha Gobind Dutt and Others

Kemp, J.—The plaintiff is the special appellant. He sues as heir of one Ramlochan, claiming to be entitled under the Hindu law to succeed to the estate of the said Ramlochan. The defendants are in possession of the estate of Ramlochan, and the plaintiff must therefore prove his title. The Court of first instance found on the evidence that Ramlochan survived his father, and that according to the Hindu law, the plaintiff is the heir of Ramlochan. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. In appeal the Subordinate Judge of East Burdwan, Baboo Yasik Lal Bose, reversed the decision of the Munsiff. He observes that the Munsiff has not stated on what principle he holds the plaintiff to be the heir of Ramlochan. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that according to the contention of the pleaders for the defendants, it appeared that the inheritance passed to the maternal grandfather, but that no other offspring of the maternal great grandfather can succeed to the property as heir; for these reasons, being of opinion that the plaintiff was not the true heir of the deceased Ramlochan, the Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the first Court.

The grounds of special appeal are, that the plaintiff as the great-grandson of Ramlochan''s maternal great-grandfather, is entitled to succeed to the estate left by Ramlochan, and that the Subordinate Judge''s decision is wrong in law.

I am of opinion that the decision of the Munsiff is correct.

The plaintiff takes the estate of Ramlochan as a Sapinda, and not as a Sakulya or a Samanodaka. He, the plaintiff, is entitled to offer undivided oblations to his great grandfather Kishto Nath to whom the deceased Ramlochan was also bound to offer such oblations. The plaintiffs, Ramlochan and Kishto Nath, are therefore Sapindas of each other: Vyavastha Darpana, volume I, 1st edition, p. 283.

The defendants are not the heirs of Ramlochan, they being the father''s brother''s daughter''s sons of the said Ramlochan.

I would reverse the decision of the Subordinate Judge, and restore that of the Munsiff.

The special appeal is decreed with costs payable by the special respondent.

Markby, J.

In this case it appears to me sufficient to say that the plaintiff is an heir of the deceased. This being so, and it being admitted that there is no nearer heir than the plaintiff, he is entitled to recover.