Dulal Chandra Seal vs Saraswati Dutta

R.N. Dutt, J.—The Appellant is the brother. The Respondent is his sister. The Respondent as the Plaintiff filed the instant suit for partition against the Appellant as Defendant.

The Plaintiff''s case was as follows:

One Gobinda Chandra Seal was the owner of the disputed lands. . He died leaving behind his widow Tarangini, one son the Defendant, and two daughters, namely the Plaintiff and Satyabala. Tarangini inherited 8 as. share after the death of Gobinda and, subsequently, she made a deed of gift of the same in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to 8 as. share in the disputed lands. There was no amicable partition. Hence, the suit.

The Defendant contested the suit. His defence was that he was the 16 as. owner of the disputed lands. The learned Munsif found that the Plaintiff had 8 as. share and so he decreed the suit in preliminary form. The Defendant preferred an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. He preferred this second appeal.

Both the Courts have found that Tarangini inherited 8 as. share in these lands under the Hindu Women''s Right to Property Act, 1937. It is the settled law that the Hindu Women''s Right to Property Act, 1937, was not attracted to agricultural lands on the ground that the Act was a Central Act but the subject ''agricultural dand'' was in the Provincial list. Both the Courts have found that the disputed lands are non-agricultural lands. This finding is not, however, based on the materials on record. The Courts below have pointed out that there was bastu in one of the plots and the other plots were bhiti, pond and jungle. But that does not determine the nature of the lands, namely, whether agricultural or non-agricultural. The Hindu Women''s Right to Property Act is not attracted to lands which are governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. The record of rights would show that the disputed lands are governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, and the dwelling house being a part of the raiyati holding is also governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act. The lands being governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act come under .the relevant Provincial" list of the Government of India Act and, as such, the Hindu Women''s Right to Property Act is not attracted. So, Tarangini acquired no interest by virtue of inheritance in these lands and consequently the Plaintiff has acquired no interest.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decrees Of the Courts below are set aside and the Plaintiff''s suit is dismissed. I make no order as to costs throughout.