AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 178 wordsWe are of opinion that the objection is a valid one and disposes of the plaintiff''s claim. A Hindu widow succeeding to her husband''s estate as heir represents the estate fully, and reversioners claiming to succeed after her are bound by decrees relating to her husband''s estate obtained against her without fraud or collusion--Katama Natchiar v. The Raja of Shivagunga 9 Moore''s Ind. App. 604; Ganga Jali v. Ram Sukal S.A. No. 355 of 1875, decided the 26th August 1875; Bansi Kuari v. Sunjhari Kuari R.A. No. 16 of 1875, decided the 19th August 1875; Suga Kumari v. Ramugrah Dubay R.A. No. 72 of 1875 decided the 21st April 1876; Nobin Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Guru Persad Dos B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 1008 : S.C. 9 W.R. 505; Amirtolal Bose v. Rajoneekant Mitter 15 B.L.R. 10.
There is no reason to believe that the decree against Musammat Ananda was obtained by collusion or fraud, and we must therefore consider that it has finally disposed of the plaintiff''s claim. We allow the appeal and dismiss the suit with costs.