পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/২৬৯

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা প্রয়োজন।

vYAvASTHA2DARPANA 143 II. It appeared from the plaint, that an eight anng portion of Mouza Kurma Dhora, was the hereditary talook ofkári Charan Choudhuri, the plaintiff's father-in-law, and on his death was enjoyed in coparcemery by his four sons, Rámkānta Choudhuri (the plaintiff's husband), Devakimandan, Dharanidhar, and Kāliprasād, who all lived together as a joint and undivided family. Dharanidhar died in 1181 B. S., leaving his widow Sáradhani without issue. The three surviving brothers, subsequently, while living together, purchased a five anna share of Mouza Pungaon, &c., out of the profita derived from their ancestorial estate. Káliprasād died childless in 1201 B.S., leaving his widow Musst. Shakhi Debi, still living. The two remaining brothers, namely, the plaintiff's husband and Devaksnandan, after living together for a long time on friendly terms, quarrelled and separated in the year 1215 B. S., and referred their dispute about their respective shares of the landed property to the arbitration of Mouluvi |Nisár.Alí, Munshí Dewán Mán Gobinda, and Mír Khairāt Ali, who divided the property equally between them, merely awarding, as maintenance to the widows of the deceased brothers, the profits during their lives of their respective shares (which, on their death, were to revert equally to the surviving brothers), payable, by the surviving ones; that of Shakhi Debi by Devakinandan, and that of Sūradhani Debi by Rámkānta, the plaintiff's (appellant's) Jusband. The plaintiff’s busband died in Assin 1216 B. S., leaving two sons, minors, by name Rāmcumár Choudhuri and Rajcumár Choudhuri; when the defendants forcibly took possession of the lands in dispute, which by the award of the arbitrators belonged to the plaintiff in her husband's right, and allowed her maintenance only. She therefore now sued for the recovery of her husband's share, which the defendants refused to restore. *. The defendant, Devakinandan Choudhuri, stated in answer, that his father Haricharan Choudhuri sold four anna portion of the above ancestral estate to Guruprashād Mujumdar, and that he (the defendant) had purchased it with his own money from the heirs of that person; that a three anna share of Mouza Pungaon was bought at public auction by his younger brother Kāliprasād solely on his own account ; that on his death his widow had succeeded to the possession of it, and that therefore the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of it was inadmissible against him (the defendant); that a two anna share of Mouza, Pungaon, &c., was purchased and engaged for by himself, exclusively, and that the plaintiff’s statement, that it had been bought with the profits derived from the ancestral estate was altogether false, that, although the defendant and the plaintiff’s husband consented to the arbitration of Mouluvi Nisfir Ali and the others, yet, as he (the defendant) was absent through illness, and the depositions of his witnesses had not been taken in his presence, he was ignorant of the grounds of their award. The other defendant did not appear to plead. The Zillah Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, awarding her possession of the share sued for, on the ground of the decision of arbitrators. - * ** Devakinandan appealed to the Calcutta Provincial Court from the above decreo affirming that onefourth of the lands belonged to Sūradhani Debi, since deceased; whose heir he (the appellent) was. Dying shortly after the admission of the appeal, he was succeeded by his son Rämjoy Choudhuri.” The Senior and the Officiating Judges of the Court of Appeal passed decree, amending the judgmếnt of the Zillah Court, and awarding to Musst. Joymani, as guardian to her minor sons, possession of her husband's shares, and to Rámjoy Choudhuri, as heir to Sáradhani Debi (deceased widow of Dharanidhar,) of her husband's share, on the ground of the opinion of the Pandit, that “if Musst. Súradhani (widow of Dharanidhar) died during the life-time of Devakimandan, her late husband’s brother, he, and after his death, his sons, would succeed to the fourth share which belonged to the said Dharanidhar.” The present appellant preferred a petition for a spojal appeal to the Sudder Court. The case came to a hearing" before the Third Jüdge (J. shakespear) who was of opinion that the decree of the Provincial Caut ug: to be reversed, and the judgment of the Zillah Court, founded on the award of the arbitrators, affìrmed.' The case was then referred to the Second Judge (C. Smith,) who did not concur in the above opinion. . s -