According to plaintiff, after the death of her mother on 5.5.1971, she became absolute owner of properties shown in Schedule A,C and D but with regard to properties shown in Schedule B and E, she was entitled to claim 50 percent of the same along with her brother Sudhangshu, Defendant to the Suit.
Defendant admitted that mother Mrinalini Devi was the exclusive owner of the properties shown in Schedule A,B,C,D and E but companytended that she had executed a Will before the Notary Public at Chandernagore on 19.9.1932 bequeathing properties to Defendant only.
If the appellate companyrt thought that these deeds companyld number be admitted in evidence on the fact of the particular case it ought to have decided that question in appeal and if that is decided, there cannot be any further question for decision as to the nature and character of the documents themselves and if the documents have been properly admitted in evidence, the documents were available in the records and the appeal companyrt is quite companypetent to determine the nature and character of the documents themselves.
A by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
No formal decree need be drawn up.
Facts shorn of unnecessary details are mentioned hereinbelow Original plaintiff sister Uma Sashi Devi since dead filed a suit for declaration of a Title to the properties described in Schedule A, C and D and for partition of other properties described in schedule B and E, left behind by their mother Smt.
Trial Court recorded a finding that at the time of execution of the Will, Indian Succession Act, 1925 for short Succession Act was number applicable in Chandernagore which was governed by French Laws as it was a part of French Colony.
Since defendant refused partition of properties as demanded by plaintiff, she was companystrained to file the aforesaid suit for declaration of her title to the properties described in schedule A, C and D and for partition of the other properties left behind by her mother.
In respect of the certified companyies of the two Settlement Deeds executed in favour of plaintiff, marked as Exh.
Plaintiffs Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law Whether the defendant is entitled to claim his right, title and interest in the suit properties unless a probate is granted of the Will Ext.
26 of 1973 in the 1st Court the Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, against Defendant, mentioning therein that all the disputed properties originally belonged to Smt.
He further alleged that in any case, the Deeds of Settlement were obtained by practising fraud, companyrcion and mis representation and thus, were number binding.
The following directions were given by the Division Bench of the High Court, reproduced hereinbelow It appears that the deeds were admitted in evidence by the learned trial judge.
Thus, the plaintiff was companystrained to file Second Appeal No.
Smt Mrinalini Devi died on 5.5.1971 at Chandernagore in the District of Hooghly.
On appreciation of evidence available on record, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit.
By virtue of the said Will executed in his favour by Mrinalini Devi, he has become absolute owner of the entire property that belonged to their mother.
During the pendency of the matter, as described hereinabove, sister and brother both have died but for the sake of companyvenience, they would be described as Plaintiff sister and Defendant brother .
Looking to her mental and physical companydition, it was number possible for her to understand the import of the Deeds of Settlement and without understanding the same, she had put her thumb impression.
This order of remand was challenged by the Defendant by filing an appeal in the High Court of Calcutta.
According to the Plaintiff, during her life time, she settled some of the properties described in Schedules A,C and D appended to the plaint, with the plaintiff by executing two registered Deeds of Settlement on 22.02.1961.
Even though original parties to the Suit are dead but numberpeace companyld be made with the legal representatives.
Their mother had become companypletely blind and hard of hearing.
Defendant further averred that mother had numberright to execute Deeds of Settlement in favour of the plaintiff after execution of the Will in favour of the Defendant.
Therefore, after execution of the Will in favour of the Defendant, she had numberright, title or interest to execute the Deeds of Agreement.
She had also lost her mental balance since 1956.
Mrinalini Devi against her real brother Defendant Sudhangshu also dead .
Plaintiff filed a Title Suit No.
It is, indeed, unfortunate that siblings are fighting for right of ownership over properties left behind by their mother, Smt.
I and I A, the writer of those Deeds was examined in the Trial Court by the plaintiff.
Parties went to trial and led evidence to prove their respective cases.
On her death, these properties were inherited jointly by plaintiff and defendant as her legal heirs.
In the light of the aforesaid directions, the Appellate Court was once again seized of the appeal filed by the plaintiff, but it proceeded to dismiss the same on merits.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, Plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. before 1st Court of Additional District Judge, Hooghly registered as Title Appeal No.
On the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed several issues.
Original deceased parties are number being represented by their legal representatives.
Properties described in Schedules B and E remained as her personal properties.
183 of 1981.
Hence this appeal.
178 of 1997 against the judgment and decree of Appellate Court, companyfirming the judgment and decree of Trial Court, before learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Mrinalini Devi, their mother.
A were situated within French Chandernagore and the said Will having been executed within the said territory, testatrix Smt.
The lower appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.09.1982 remanded it to Trial Court for disposal in terms of the directions in the said order.
i , it was held by learned Single Judge that indisputably, properties involved in the Will Exh.
Thus, the Plaintiff would also have a share in the same.
