Mt. Jagtaran Kuer vs Mt. Gaitri Debi

Dhavle, J.—These appeals are from a decision of the District Judge of Patna allowing the application of Gaitri Debi and disallowing the application of Jagtaran Kuer for a succession certificate in respect of a debt of about Rs. 1,300 due to one Sheonandan Prasad Chaudhury, who died on 8th February 1934. Gaitri Debi claimed as Sheonandan''s widow, and Jagtaran as his daughter. About Jagtaran''s parentage there was no dispute at all, but regarding Gaitri''s claim, it is alleged on behalf of Jagtaran that she was not a wife but only a cook and concubine of Sheonandan. This was overruled by the learned District Judge, and Gaitri''s claim was accepted. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken us into the evidence produced in the case, and laid much stress on the fact that the record does not show that Sheonandan, who was admittedly a Kalwar, belonged to the Jayaswal section of that caste. The'' point of the criticism is that Jayaswal Kalwars recognise sagai, while evidence was adduced on behalf of Jagtaran that among Kalwars (meaning that section of Kalwars to which Sheonandan belonged) sagai was not recognised. That Gaitri had been married to another husband previously was not disputed. We understand from the learned advocate for the respondent that what happened in the lower Court was that it was common ground during the arguments there that Sheonandan belonged to the Jayaswal section of Kalwars, Indeed it is difficult to understand the reference of the District Judge to ''Bhattacharjya''s Hindu castes and Sects'' as regards sagai among Jayaswal Kalwars unless that had been the case.

The evidence that was adduced on behalf of the appellant that Sagai was not recognised in Sheonandan''s caste was belied by the actual doings of several of her witnesses. Baldeo Prasad, her second witness, for instance, admitted that Gaitri had been invited to his house on the occasion of the Chhat; and it is not easy to imagine that a young woman of twenty who had lost her former husband, and had been engaged by an old man of the age and position of Sheonandan as a cook and kept as a mistress, was invited on an occasion of this kind out of mere regard to his position. Rambilas Prasad, another witness for Jagtaran, had to admit that Gaitri had been invited to his house to attend the marriage ceremony of his brother Raghubir, and here again the same reflection is inevitable. Whatever the position of Sheonandan, is it likely that though his caste did not recognise the custom of Sagai, Rambilas invited Sheonandan''s cook and mistress of twenty years of age to a marriage ceremony? Then there is the husband of Jagtaran. It is unnecessary to refer to his obvious interest in the success of Jagtaran. But the postcard that he admittedly wrote to his father-in-law conveying respects to Sri Maiji and speaking of Naniji as well tells its own tale. There is no dispute that Maiji in the postcard refers to Gaitri.

It has been suggested by the learned advocate that Gaitri was on that occasion referred to as Maiji (a term of respect) on account of deference to Sheonandan; but is it likely that the deference would be carried so far as to extend to a cook and mistress? As regards the reference to Naniji, it has been urged on behalf of the appellant that there is nothing to show that this reference is to the mother of the Maiji; that it may have referred to another maternal grand mother; and that as the postcard asks Sheonandan to write where and how Naniji is, and as the mother of the cook and mistress had no other house to go to, it should be taken that the Naniji, whoever it was, was not the mother of the Maiji. Now Ramchandra Prasad, the son-in-law, who wrote the postcard, was not questioned in detail about the Naniji. At the same time there is no indication in the record that there was at that time in the house of Sheonandan any lady other than Gaitri''s mother, who could have answered even approximately to the description of Naniji. But it is not only the actings of these witnesses that belied the story that sagai is not recognized in the caste and that Gaitri was not the wife of Sheonandan but only his cook and mistress. Independent evidence was forthcoming in the story of the postmaster who acted for Sheonandan in the matter of the shares of the Bihar Cotton Mills. That Company made a fourth call for money due on certain shares, and the money was sent by money order the acknowledgment form (Ex. 2) being filled up by or on behalf of the sender. This was actually done by the postmaster, who entered the name of the remitter in the space reserved for the purpose as "Gaitri Debi, wife of Babu Sheonandan Prasad Chaudhury, etc.," and the witness said that he did it at the instance of Sheonandan. It is suggested that Sheonandan for the sake of his own prestige might have been anxious to pass off "Gaitri" as his wife, though in fact she was his cook and mistress. But one does not usually find even old man with young cooks and mistresses buying share for them.

Comment was made by the learned advocate on the admission of Gaitri''s mother that no enquiries were made about the former children of the husband when it was arranged that Gaitri was to be married to Sheonandan. But I have before now come across cases where young girls, even younger than Gaitri, have been given in marriage to old men of means without any enquiries about their family; money often imports everything that is sought in such cases. And in the present case the mother says that she did not object to the match as she thought that Sheonandan was a rich man and would maintain her daughter very well. There is also the evidence that the marriage was settled by the wife of Banarasi a relative of wealth and standing in the Kalwar community.

The mother''s admission therefore that no enquiry was made does not in my opinion throw any doubt on the story that Gaitri was in fact married to Sheonandan. Judging by the doings of the defence witnesses themselves, to which I have specifically referred, it seems perfectly clear that Gaitri was received in the community as Sheonandan''s wife, and was treated as such even by Sheonandan''s son-in-law, the husband of the appellant. It does not seem worth while in these circumstances to go further into the matter of the reference by the learned District Judge to Mr. Bhattacharya''s book about the prevalence of sagai among Jaiswal Kalwars, though we find from Risley''s classical work on the same subject that sagai prevails or did prevail at the time the book was written in several, if not all, sections of the Kalwar caste. In my opinion the learned District Judge arrived at a perfectly correct finding on the evidence that Gaitri was the wife and not the cook and mistress of Sheonandan. It follows that the order to grant a succession certificate to her in preference to the daughter who only claims on the footing that Gaitri was not the widow is also correct.

I should have referred to one more point raised by the learned advocate for the appellant, and that is that Section 375, Succession Act, required the District Judge in this case to take security from Mt. Gaitri Debi. Reference was made to Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 373, the former of which has no application in the present case. As to the latter, it is confined to cases where there are more applicants than one for a certificate and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased. The contention is that Gaitri was not the only person interested in the estate of Sheonandan, but that Jagtaran was also interested in it. Jagtaran, however, is not at present interested in the property at all if, as has been found by the learned District Judge, Gaitri was the widow of Sheonandan and took the estate of her husband exclusively for the time being. It seems clear therefore that Jagtaran cannot at the present moment be regarded as interested in the estate of the deceased. The contention that this was a case within Sub-section (4), Section 373 must therefore be overruled. The result is that both these appeals are dismissed with costs. There will be one consolidated hearing fee in the two appeals.

Wort, Ag. C.J.

I agree.