পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২০১

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

VYAVASTHA?.DAR.PANA 75 II Claim to the cstate of a deceased proprietor by his kindred as heirs was dismissed, on proof that the defendant, who affirmed that he was legally adopted by, and received the estate in gift fron, the proprietor's widow, was entitled to it not under the deed of gift from the nidon, since she could not alienate the estate left by her husband, but as her husband's adopted son and legal heir. Nanda Cumár and another versus Rájendra Nārāyan. 2nd December 1808. S. D. A. Rep. Vol. I. p. 261. Krishna Mani, Debí, widow of Gobinda Prasad Láhuri deceased, instituted this suit to recover from Musst. Uma Debi, the mother, and the three brothers of her husband, one fourth of the family property real and personal. The defendants pleaded in appeal that the plaintiff had no claim to share at all, because she had left her husband's family and had resided in her father's house ; and because the cognizance of the claim was barred by the rule of limitation, which should be reckoned from the year 1236, when her husband, quitting his paternal dwelling, had gone to reside in his father-in-law's house, and that, even supposing his death to have occurred, as asserted, on the first Bhadoon (Bhādra) 1238, a period of more than 12 years had elapsed from that date to the institution of the suit. By the Court, Messrs. Reid, Dick, and Jackson. The points for consideration are as follows : 1st. Is the cognizance of the suit barred by the rule of limitation ? The suit was instituted on the 11th August 1843, or 30th Sawun (Sriban) 1250. The plaintiff asserts that her husband died on the 20th August 1831, or 5th Bhadoon 1238. Even assuming that the date of his death was, as asserted by the defendants, the 1st Bhadoon, or 16th August, the period of 12 years had not expired by two days. The Court reject the plea of the defendants that the commencement of the action must he reckoned, not from the day on which the petition of plaint was filed (14th August 1813,) but from that on which, after due permission obtained from the Sudder Dewany Adawlut for the trial of the suit in Zillah Mymensingh, part of the property being situate in Rajshahye, it was placed for trial on the file of the principal Sudder Ameen of Mymensingh ; and rule that the cognizance of the suit is not barred. 2nd. Is the plaintiff debarred from suing by the fact of her having chosen to reside in the family of her father instead of in that of her husband On this point the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Káshímath Basa k vcrsus Hara Sundari Dásí and another, (see page 85, Morton's l¢eperts,) is, in the opinion of the Court, quite decisive as to the right of the plaintiff to sue. Uma Debi and others, appellants versus Krishna Mani Debí, Respondent, 29th July 1840, S. D. A. R. Vol. VII. pp. 27t)–272. East, C. J.--This was an action of ejectment for some premises, containing altogether five Kata's and fineco Chhataks, with a dwelling-house at Arkuli in Calcutta, of which Nihnani De, who died between nineteen and twenty years ago, was the patrimonial owner. It appears by the evidence of one of the family that Nilmani, for the last two osthree years of his life, had been insane and incapable of work, and that his wife was obliged to dispose of all his personal property in support of hini and his family during his malady. At his death he left his widow Abhayá and three infant children, two sons, and an unmarried daughter. Those sons are the present defendants. At his death there was nothing les’for the subsistence of his family but the property in question, and another small piece of ground, containing five Kaitús and a half, which he had purchased a short time before his derangement. The present lessor of the plaintiff claims under a deed of purchase, in reality from the widow, but nominally from her and her eldest son, both being parties to the deed, dated 15th .4gralia yan 1°0.3 Is. S. nearly twenty years ago, for the price of Rs. 218. It is not disputed that the price was fair at the tire ; and it appears to have been an open and avowed transaction; but it was also admitted that, at that time, Durgaprasad, the eldest of the two infant sons, and who was a nominal party to the deed, was oily seven °r eight years of age. Case o bearing on the vyavastha * Nos. 19 and 20. Casc braring on the vyavasthas No. 21 Case ... * bearing on the vyāvasthas Nus. 25 auri 2 *