Chakradhar Jha and Others vs Shabkant Misra and Others

Adami, J.—The plaintiff in this case sought for a declaration of his title to a 1/6 share of certain properties and for joint possession of the same on the ground, that the said properties were stridhan properties of his maternal grandmother. For case was that his maternal grandmother had acquired these properties under a (sic) of sale. The lower Appellate Court found (sic) that the kobala relied upon by the plaintiff was not a genuine-document; but found, however, that the maternal grandmother had been in possession of the properties for more than twelve years arid that that possession had been adverse to her step-son. The learned District Judge held that this being so, the properties acquired by adverse possession became the stridhan of the plaintiffs maternal grandmother and, therefore; descended to the plaintiff. The plaintiff suit was, therefore, decreed.

The only question which arises in (sic) appeal is whether the finding of the (sic) Appellate Court that the property (sic) case was the stridhan of the (sic) grandmother is correct. Mr. Jha(sic) lied on the case of Lajwanti v. (sic). Council. There it was held that a Hindu widow is not a tenant for life, but has a widow''s estate in her deceased hushand''s estate, and that if possessing as widow she possesses adversely to anyone as to certain parcels'', she does not acquire the parcels as stridhan but she makes them good to her husband''s estate. That decision seems to conclude the present case. But Mr. Mitter on behalf of the respondent argues that the case J have just cited relates only to a case in which the widow takes possession as a widow and holds adversely. He argues that in the present case the husband''s step-son was alive and, therefore, the maternal grandmother had no widow''s estate but was only entitled to her maintenance, and that, if a woman is in possession of property not as a widow but otherwise, and obtains a title by adverse possession, that property will not be taken to form part of her husband''s estate but will become her stridhan. In the present case, however, it is clear from the judgment of the lower Court that the maternal grandmother did enter upon the property in suit as the widow of her husband, for we and that she approached the landlord and (sic)ad her name substituted for her husband''s name in his sherista after the death of the husband. This proves to our satisfaction that the maternal grandmother did, as a (sic) of fact, take possession of the land (sic) widow of her husband and that being (sic), it is clear that the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council to which (sic) have referred above must hold good and the property cannot be held to be stridhan of the maternal grandmother.

This appeal must, therefore, succeed and the decree of the lower Courts must be set aside and the suit be dismissed with costs in all the Courts.

Das, J.

I agree.