The High Court has ruled that a sister cannot claim to be a reversioner to her Hindu brother’s property while his widow is alive.
A High Court bench comprising Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal and Justice Md Rafiqul Islam delivered the judgment on July 9. The full judgment was published on August 12.
The court made the observation while rejecting a rule issued in a civil revision petition seeking the right to become a reversioner to a brother’s property.
In the case titled Lily Rani Das and others, heirs of Amar Kumar Das vs Dr Monoranjan Mahuri and others, the High Court upheld the judgment and decree of the subordinate court.
The main judgment was written by Justice Md Rafiqul Islam. Lawyer Samiran Das Gupta represented the revision petitioner, while lawyer Toufiq Anwar Chowdhury appeared for the defendant.
The case concerned 1.35 acres of land in Patiya upazila of Chittagong.
According to the case details, Ramakanta Biswas, a resident of Patiya, had one son and three daughters. In 1920, he purchased the disputed land with his own money in the name of his son, Satish Chandra Biswas.
Satish died during his father’s lifetime, while Ramakanta died in 1933.
After Ramakanta’s death, his daughter Shaul Bala Das claimed ownership of the land as an heir. Meanwhile, Satish’s widow, Sabitri Bala, sold the land to Dr Monoranjan Mahuri in 1996 while she was alive.
Shaul Bala Das filed a civil suit before the Patiya court in 1998, claiming inheritance over the property. She alleged that the sale deed was forged and fraudulent and had been executed without legal necessity.
After examining the evidence, the Patiya Subordinate Judge’s Court dismissed the suit on June 22, 2000.
Shaul Bala then appealed to the Chittagong District Judge’s Court. After hearing the appeal, the 1st Additional District Judge of Chittagong dismissed it on September 23, 2007.
She subsequently filed a civil revision petition before the High Court in 2008 under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the appellate court’s judgment and decree. The High Court issued a rule the same year.
The rule was taken up for hearing this year, and the High Court rejected it on July 9, upholding the lower court’s judgment and decree.
In its observations, the High Court said that under Hindu Dayabhaga law, a sister has no right to inherit her brother’s property during the lifetime of his widow.
The court said that after her husband’s death, a widow acquires rights over her husband’s property during her lifetime. However, her power to transfer such property is limited.
According to the judgment, if a widow transfers such property, only a person legally entitled to succeed to it after her death — known as a “reversioner” — can challenge the legal validity of the transfer.
A person who has no present or future legal interest in the property cannot challenge such a transfer, the court said.
The court further observed that a person without a legal right to the property cannot file a case or challenge its transfer merely on the ground that it was not made out of “legal necessity.”