Court determines ownership of properties based on stridhana claim, denies relief to original Plaintiffs.

The court ruled that the properties at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street and 31, College Row were owned by Rani Bala Dutt as her stridhana property. The original Plaintiffs, claiming ownership, failed to prove their case, and the properties were confirmed as inherited by Paresh Chandra Dutt. The court ordered further proceedings for the remaining properties, denying relief to the Plaintiffs for the mentioned properties.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership of properties at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata, and 31, College Row, Kolkata.
2. Whether these properties were purchased with stridhana property or by Nani Gopal Dutt in the name of Rani Bala Dutt.
3. Succession rights to these properties.
4. Plaintiffs' interest in the immovable properties listed in Schedule A.
5. Reliefs entitled to the parties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of Properties at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata, and 31, College Row, Kolkata:

The original Plaintiffs claimed that these properties were purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in benami in the name of his wife, Rani Bala Dutt. The Defendants contended that Rani Bala Dutt purchased these properties with her stridhana property. The court examined the evidence and found that the Plaintiffs failed to establish that the properties were purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in benami. The testimony of Loknath Dutt, one of the Plaintiffs, was based on hearsay, and there was no direct evidence to prove that Nani Gopal Dutt provided the consideration money. The court concluded that Rani Bala Dutt was the actual owner of the properties.

2. Whether Properties were Purchased with Stridhana Property or by Nani Gopal Dutt:

The court referred to the principles laid down in various judgments, including Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra and Thakur Bhim Singh vs. Thakur Kan Singh, which state that the burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person asserting it. The Plaintiffs failed to provide concrete evidence that the properties were purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in benami. The court also referred to the work of Dwarka Nath Mitter, which states that land purchased by a woman with her stridhana becomes her stridhana. The court concluded that even if the funds were provided by Nani Gopal Dutt, the properties would still be considered stridhana of Rani Bala Dutt.

3. Succession Rights to the Properties:

The court examined the rules of succession under Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. It was established that the stridhana property of a woman is inherited by her sons prior to the sons of her predeceased son. The court referred to the judgment in Prakash Chandra Mukherji vs. Nandarani Debi, which confirmed that the sons have a prior claim over the sons of a predeceased son. Therefore, the court concluded that the original Plaintiffs, being the sons of the predeceased son of Rani Bala Dutt, had no right, title, or interest in her stridhana properties. The properties were inherited by Paresh Chandra Dutt, the surviving son of Rani Bala Dutt.

4. Plaintiffs' Interest in the Immovable Properties Listed in Schedule A:

The court found that the properties at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street and 31, College Row were not part of the joint family properties. The Plaintiffs were not entitled to any partition of these properties. The preliminary decree in respect of other properties, namely 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, 16, Beniatola Lane, and 17, Beniatola Lane, had already been drawn up, confirming the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' fifty percent shares.

5. Reliefs Entitled to the Parties:

The court decided against the original Plaintiffs for the properties at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street and 31, College Row. The properties were confirmed as stridhana of Rani Bala Dutt, inherited by Paresh Chandra Dutt. The court ordered the suit to be fixed for hearing on the report of the Partition Commissioner for the remaining properties and argument for passing the final judgment.

Conclusion:

The properties at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street and 31, College Row were owned by Rani Bala Dutt as her stridhana property. The Plaintiffs had no right to these properties, and they were inherited by Paresh Chandra Dutt. The court fixed the suit for further hearing on the report of the Partition Commissioner regarding the other properties.

---