Section 3 of Act 18 of 1937 as amended by Act 1 1 of 1938 insofar as it is material in this appeal is 3.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 28, 1958 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
Sarjoo Prasad, Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, B. P. Singh.
458 of 1951.
B. Datar, Vineet Kumar and K. R. Chaudhury, for the respondent No.
1 When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of subsection 3 , have the same interest as he himself had.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
939 of 1963.
In appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Patna, granted a decree for possession of a share in the property as at the date of the suit.
But the Parliament enacted Act 18 of 1937 which sought to invest the widow in a family governed by the Mitakshara law with the same interest which her husband had in the family estate at the time of his death, and also with the right to obtain by partition separate possession other interest.
Being of the opinion that the plea of separation of Babuji from the companyarcenary in 1934 was number established, and that the interest of Babuji in the companyercenary property devolved upon the surviving companyarceners, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
The suit was resisted by the companylaterals of Babuji.
F annexed to the plaint.
C. Chatterjee and D. Goburdhun, or respondents Nos.1 and 2.
Anil Kumar Sablok and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
Chando Kuer died on March 9, 1951, and her daughters Subujpari and Sujan Devi hereinafter companylectively called the appellants were brought on the record of the suit as her heirs and legal representatives.
It was the case of Chando Kuer that her husband Babuji separated in 1934 from the companyarcenary of which he was a member, and on his death on October 28, 1937 his share in the family property devolved upon her, but the defendants failed and neglected to divide the estate and deliver to her the share inherited by her.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. Musamat Chando Kuer, widow of Babuji, instituted a suit on April 23, 1949 in the Court of the Sabordinate Judge, Darbhanga, against the companylaterals of her husband for a decree for partition and separate possession of a half share in the properties described in Schedules A to E and a fourth share in Sch.
With certificate granted by the High Court, Satrughan the son of Ghiran has appealed to this Court.
Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, on the death of a companyarcener his individual interest in the companyarcenary property devolves by survivorship upon the remaining companyarceners, and his widow if any is entitled to maintenance only out of the property.
