Lalit Mohan Das vs Province of West Bengal and Another

P.N. Mookerjee, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit for inter alia declaration of the plaintiff''s title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same. The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below and hence this Second Appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims title as the only heir of his step-mother''s deceased sister Sishumati who was the admitted original owner of the disputed properties. Sishumati was a prostitute at the time of her death and, upon her demise, the Police took charge of her properties. The plaintiff put in a claim before the District Judge under the Indian Succession Act but it was rejected. Thereupon, the plaintiff instituted the present suit.

The Province of Bengal, as it then was, was made the first defendant as the Crown was claiming Sishumati''s properties by escheat. Defendant No. 2 was a claimant under a certain alleged auction purchase.

The plaintiff''s claim of inheritance was founded on two alleged facts. In the first place, he claimed to be the step-son of Sishumati''s sister Indumati and, on the strength of that relationship, claimed to be Sishumati''s heir. The relationship has been proved but the plaintiff''s claim under this head has been rejected on the ground that such a relation is not an heir under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, by which the parties concerned are or were admittedly governed. The other fact, sought to be proved by the plaintiff, was that Sishumati had married his paternal uncle Gour Das and had thus become his paternal aunt and he, as the nephew, was entitled to succeed to her properties. This relationship has not been accepted by any of the two courts below upon the view that the evidence, adduced by the plaintiff to prove Sishumati''s marriage with Gour Das, was not at all satisfactory and the courts below have recorded the concurrent finding that this marriage has not been proved. On the evidence before me, I am unable to differ from that finding and, accordingly, the rejection of the plaintiff''s claim of title under this second head must stand.

The question, therefore, that requires consideration is whether the plaintiff''s claim of heirship as the sister''s step-son of the deceased Sishumati is acceptable in law.

This part of the plaintiff''s claim has been sought to be resisted on two grounds. In the first place, it has been argued that the sister''s step-son is not an heir under the Dayabhaga law. In the second place, a point was sought to be made that, as Sishumati was a degraded woman, the plaintiff, as her sister''s step-son, could not claim to inherit her properties, even assuming that such inheritance would have been permissible if Sishumati was not a prostitute.

On this second objection, a large number of cases were cited and discussed in argument but, in my view, the plaintiff''s claim would fail on the broader ground that a sister''s step-son is not an heir under the Dayabhaga law and, accordingly, it is unnecessary to examine the above cases, cited during argument, or the apparent conflict that is disclosed by some of them.

The ruling principle of succession under the Dayabhaga law is the doctrine of spiritual benefit. Propinquity or blood-relationship is also relevant in certain instances. In the present case, however, neither of the above two doctrines would aid the plaintiff. The plaintiff certainly cannot claim to be a blood-relation of the deceased Sihhumati. There is no tie of blood between them. Sishumati''s sister was Indumati who was married to the plaintiff''s father Jadudas. Plaintiff, however, was Jadudas''s son by his former wife. Propinquity or blood-relationship cannot, therefore, be put forward by the plaintiff to support his claim of heirship to Sishumati. Clearly also, in the context of the above relationship, there is no scope for any application of the doctrine of spiritual benefit. The basic principles, underlying Dayabhaga inheritance, do not, therefore, assist the plaintiff. It is said, however, that the sister''s son is admittedly an heir and, as the word "son" includes "step-son" as well, the sister''s step-son would also be an heir. This reasoning is entirely fallacious. There is no universal rule that "son" would always include "step-son" and the theory that, in matters of inheritance, a particular relationship would ordinarily include both whole-blood or full-blood and half-blood is based on considerations which are altogether inapplicable in the present case. Where there is no blood-relationship at all. question of whole-blood or half-blood does not arise. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to discuss the various cases which were cited in proof of the above theory. In my opinion, the courts below have taken the right view and this appeal must fail. I, accordingly, dismiss the appeal though, in the circumstances, I would make no order for costs in this Court.