Mt. Ammole Kuer vs Kamla Dutt Misir and Another

Das, J.—One Ambikadeo Missir who died in 1905 left a widow and two daughters Anmole Kuer and Puna Kuer. Anmole Kuer is the plaintiff. The defendants are the sons of Puna Kuar who died some time in 1921. The widow of Ambikadeo died in 1911 and upon her death Anmole Kuer and Puna Kuer succeeded to the properties left by Ambikadeo. On the 7th July 1912 they entered into a transaction which is the subject matter of the dispute before us. They appear to have partitioned the entire property left by Ambikadeo between them and each relinquished in favour of the other the right to claim the properties by survivorship from the other. Under the Hindu Law on the death of one of the daughters the other daughter would be entitled to take the properties by survivorship to the exclusion of the sons of the deceased daughter. By the agreement between the parties each gave up the right to succeed to the properties held by the other by survivorship. This arrangement was effected on the 7th July 1912. Puna Kuer died in 1921 and upon her death the plaintiff claimed to take the properties which were allotted to Puna Kuer by survivorship to the exclusion of her sons who have been cited as defendants in this action. The defendants rely upon the deed of relinquishment executed by Anmole Kuer and contend that the plaintiff by virtue of that deed has lost her right to take the properties belonging th Puna Kuer by survivorship. The learned Subordinate Judge has given effect to the defence and has dismissed the plaintiff''s suit.

In my opinion the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is right and must be affirmed. The decision in no way touches the interest of the sons of the plaintiff. It may be open to them to contend that they are not bound by the deed of relinquishment executed by their mother in favour of Puna Kuer on 7th July 1912; but the plaintiff as a party to the transaction is clearly bound by the terns thereof. If it could be established that Anmole Kuer and Puna Kuer took definite shares in the properties left by their father, it might be contended that the plaintiff could not alienate the chance of succeeding to the properties which Puna Kuer inherited from her father; but it is too late to contend that Hindu daughters succeeding to their father take estates in severalty. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the estate of two widows who take their husband''s property by inheritance is one estate and it was pointed out that "the right of survivorship is so strong that the survivor takes the whole property to the exclusion even of daughters of the deceased widow." Bhugwandeen Dooby v. Myna Baee (1886) 11 MIA 487. The case of daughters taking by inheritance stands on the same footing. This was established on the case of Aumirtolal Bose v. Rajoneekant Mitter (1874) 2 IA 113. The case not being one of inheritance the question as to the relinquishment of the chance of succession does not arise. Anmole Kuer and Puna Kuer took a joint estate as between them and it was competent to Anmole Kuer to give up her right to survivorship to the properties on the death of Puna Kuer. This proposition has been established in cases far too numerous to mention.

I must dismiss this appeal with costs.

Adami, J.

I agree.