JUDGMENT : SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J 1. The instant suit is instituted by the original Plaintiffs praying for declaration that the premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata belong to and form part of joint family properties; a declaration of the shares of the parties in various properties mentioned in Schedule “A” of the plaint; a declaration that the deed of gift dated 1st February, 1964 is a sham and benami transaction not meant to be acted upon and is invalid and void; direction to the original Defendants to render true and faithful accounts; partition of joint family properties by metes and bounds along with other reliefs. 2. The plaint case is that the common ancestor of the parties herein Nani Gopal Dutt, since deceased, was a common ancestor of the parties and was the sole and absolute owner of various movable and immovable properties described in Schedule A of the plaint. Out of various immovable properties premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Calcutta was acquired by the said Nani Gopal Dutt, since deceased, as a result of the partition between himself and his brothers. Properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta as well as 31, College Row, Calcutta were acquired by the said Nani Gopal Dutt out of his own money but in the benami of his wife Smt. Rani Bala Dutt, since deceased. The said Nani Gopal Dutt died intestate in October 1951, leaving behind him his surviving son Paresh Chandra Dutt, the original Defendant, his widow Rani Bala Dutt and three grandsons, being the original Plaintiffs, of his predeceased son Suresh Chandra Dutt. Smt. Rani Bala Dutt died on 9th August, 1952 and she was governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Baidya Nath Dutt, the original Plaintiff No. 1 and one of the son of the predeceased son of Nani Gopal Dutt died on 1st October, 1985 intestate leaving behind him his wife Depti Rani Dutt, son Sumit Kumar Dutt and daughter Barnasree Dutt who were substituted later on. Paresh Chandra Dutt died on 09.04.1986. His legal heirs and successors were substituted in the suit as Defendants. The properties mentioned in “Schedule A” are joint properties. Paresh Chandra Dutt, since deceased used to act as manager of the joint properties and funds and had misapplied the income, as alleged. Paresh Chandra Dutt died on 09.04.1986. His legal heirs and successors were substituted in the suit as Defendants. The properties mentioned in “Schedule A” are joint properties. Paresh Chandra Dutt, since deceased used to act as manager of the joint properties and funds and had misapplied the income, as alleged. It is averred in the plaint that Paresh Chandra Dutt, since deceased used to claim the immovable properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata as properties of her mother and for that reason he inherited such properties from her mother to the exclusion of the original Plaintiffs. It is the case of the original Plaintiffs that the said properties were purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in benami of Rani Bala. Real owner of the said properties was Nani Gopal Dutt. As such, on demise of Nani Gopal Dutt, the sons of predeceased son of Nani Gopal Dutt, being the original Plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the said properties. It is also the case of the original Plaintiffs that the original Defendant Paresh Chandra Dutt, since deceased transferred and conveyed to his sons his undivided half shares of the properties located at premises no. 16 and premises no. 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata. The remaining undivided half share of these two properties, belong to the original Plaintiffs. Claiming all the properties mentioned in Schedule “A” of the plaint as joint properties, the instant suit was filed praying for reliefs, as stated above. 3. List of immovable properties set out in Schedule “A” are: Schedule “A” PART I - IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES 1. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Calcutta. 2. 16, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta. 3. 17, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta. 4. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta. 5. 31, College Row, Calcutta. 4. The original Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. It is denied that Nani Gopal Dutt was sole and absolute owner or acquired properties alleged in the list given in Schedule A or that he was the owner of ornaments or jewellery or cash amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- as alleged in Schedule A. It is also denied that Nani Gopal Dutt was owner of premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. It is contended in the written statement that Nani Gopal Dutt since deceased, at the time of death, left behind premises no. 1,00,000/- as alleged in Schedule A. It is also denied that Nani Gopal Dutt was owner of premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. It is contended in the written statement that Nani Gopal Dutt since deceased, at the time of death, left behind premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane and 16 and 17 Beniatola Lane, Calcutta as well as shares of United Bank of India a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and some furniture and utensils. It is also contended in the written statement that Nani Gopal Dutt had no right, title or interest in the properties located at Premises No. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. It is the case of the Defendants that Rani Bala Dutt, mother of the original Defendant purchased the premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street on 21stJune, 1940 out of her stridhana properties. Similarly Rani Bala Dutt purchased on 28th September, 1943 the premises no. 31, College Row, Calcutta for lawful consideration out of her stridhana money. She was sole and absolute owner of those two properties. Rani Bala Dutt died intestate on 9th August, 1952. On her death the original Defendant inherited two properties, namely, premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta as her only son and legal heir to the exclusion of the original Plaintiffs. It is the contention of the written statement that on death of Nani Gopal Dutt the Plaintiffs and the original Defendant became his legal heirs and successors. It was further stated in the written statement that the original Plaintiffs and the original Defendant were joint owners of the property located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane along with 250 shares of United Bank of India and some utensils and furniture. It was denied that Nani Gopal Dutt left a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- . The original Defendant in terms of her registered deed of gift dated 01.02.1964 transferred to his sons, namely, Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 of his right, title and interest in respect of premises no. 16, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta and 17, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta by registered deed of gift and have seized to any proprietary interests therein. As a result of such transfer the Plaintiff and the original Defendant jointly owned and only premises no. 2 to 6 of his right, title and interest in respect of premises no. 16, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta and 17, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta by registered deed of gift and have seized to any proprietary interests therein. As a result of such transfer the Plaintiff and the original Defendant jointly owned and only premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Calcutta, 250 shares in United Bank of India and some other articles. 5. Plaint was amended subsequently and additional written statements were filed. On death, parties were substituted. 6. Issues were framed on the basis of the rival claims of the parties and subsequently trial of the suit followed. Single Bench of this Court passed judgment on 8th August, 1994. In terms of the said judgment Plaintiffs’ claim in so far as it relates to premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta, and 31, College Row, Calcutta, was negated but it was held that Plaintiffs and Defendants each were entitled to fifty percent shares of the properties located at 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Calcutta, 16, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta and 17, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta. Preliminary decree was accordingly passed and partition commissioner was appointed to affect the partition of the immovable properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares decided in the preliminary decree. 7. An appeal was preferred before the Division Bench against Judgment of the Single Bench dated 8th August, 1994. The Appellate Court, in terms of the Judgment dated 3rd June, 1998 set aside the judgment and decree of the Single Bench in respect of premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. The Single Bench relied upon the ratio of Mithilesh Kumari and Another vs. Prem Behari Khare, AIR 1989 SC 1247 and Om Prakash vs. Jai Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 885 in coming to the conclusion on applicability of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Single Bench in respect of premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta upholding the rest, in view of ratio of 1995 (2) SCC 632 and 1994 (4) SCC 572. The suit was remanded to be decided afresh by the Trial Court in respect of these two properties. Liberty was given to the parties to adduce evidence. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta upholding the rest, in view of ratio of 1995 (2) SCC 632 and 1994 (4) SCC 572. The suit was remanded to be decided afresh by the Trial Court in respect of these two properties. Liberty was given to the parties to adduce evidence. It was further ordered that so far as the report which has already been filed by the Learned Commissioner of Partition as regards the other properties shall be dealt with by the Learned Trial Judge in accordance with law. 8. Original Plaintiff was not interested to proceed with the suit. In terms of order dated 9th September, 2019, Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 were transposed as Plaintiffs to proceed with the suit. 9. Since the suit was to be heard afresh in respect of the properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street and 31, College Row both in Calcutta, suggested issues were filed by the parties and issues were framed in terms of order dated 23rd June, 2016, which are as follows: 1. Whether premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta are joint properties of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants? 2. Do the Plaintiffs have any interest in the immovable properties, particulars of which have been given in part II of Schedule A to the plaint? 3. To what relief, if any, which the parties entitled to? 10. However, at the time of argument it was felt necessary to frame another issue namely: (i) Whether Nani Gopal Dutt was the actual owner of the properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta and Rani Bala Dutt was the benamder? (ii) Whether 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta were purchased by Rani Bala Dutt out of her stridhana property or out of consideration money provided by Nani Gopal Dutt? (iii) Who are successors of Rani Bala Dutt in respect of 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta, if the said properties were purchased by her out of stridhana? 11. Therefore, the recast issues may be stated as follows: 1. Whether Nani Gopal Dutt was the actual owner of the properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta and Rani Bala Dutt was the benamder? 2. 11. Therefore, the recast issues may be stated as follows: 1. Whether Nani Gopal Dutt was the actual owner of the properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta and Rani Bala Dutt was the benamder? 2. Whether 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta were purchased by Rani Bala Dutt out of her stridhana property or out of consideration money provided by Nani Gopal Dutt? 3. Who are successors of Rani Bala Dutt in respect of 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta if the said properties were purchased by her out of stridhana? 4. Whether premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta are joint properties of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants? 5. Do the Plaintiffs have any interest in the immovable properties, particulars of which have been given in part II of Schedule A to the plaint? 6. To what relief, if any, which the parties entitled to? 12. Issue nos. 1 and 2 should be clubbed together for decision. Since the suit was filed in the year 1970 prior to coming into effect of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and since it was decided in R. Raja Gopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan, (1995) 2 SCC 630 , observed and applied by the Appellate Court that operation of the said Act would not affect the suit, it is not necessary to go into the provisions of the said Act to find its application in the present suit. 13. The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Paul Chowdhury vehemently argued that when the original Plaintiffs asserted that the property was purchased benami burden of proof lies on him to prove that. He referred to various decisions namely 2010 (1) CHN, 2014 (1) Supreme Today 1, 2015 (7) Supreme Today 434 to substantiate his argument. 14. It is trite law that when a plea of benami is taken burden of proof lies on the person, who asserts so that the property is benami. In Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, (1974) 1 SCC 3 speaking for the Bench, Justice R.S. Sarkaria succinctly, laid down the principle of law: “6. It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. In Jaydayal Poddar vs. Bibi Hazra, (1974) 1 SCC 3 speaking for the Bench, Justice R.S. Sarkaria succinctly, laid down the principle of law: “6. It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not un-often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. The reason is that a deed is a solemn document prepared and executed after considerable deliberation, and the person expressly shown as the purchaser or transferee in the deed, starts with the initial presumption in his favour that the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs. Though the question, whether a particular sale is benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining this question, no absolute formulae or acid test, uniformly applicable in all situations, can be laid down; yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the Courts are usually guided by these circumstances: (1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, it any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of the title-deeds after the sale and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.” 15. It is further clarified that these indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. But the source when the purchase money came, is by far the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. It is further clarified that these indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. But the source when the purchase money came, is by far the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another. This principle of law was subsequently referred to in Thakur Bhim Singh vs. Thakur Kan Singh, (1980) 3 SCC 72 where the Supreme Court of India laid down: “18. The principle governing the determination of the question whether a transfer is a benami transaction or not may be summed up thus: (1) the burden of showing that a transfer is a benami transaction lies on the person who asserts that it is such a transaction; (2) it is proved that the purchase money came from a person other than the person in whose favour the property is transferred, the purchase is prima facie assumed to be for the benefit of the person who supplied the purchase money, unless there is evidence to the contrary; (3) the true character of the transaction is governed by the intention of the person who has contributed the purchase money and (4) the question as to what his intention was has to be decided on the basis of the surrounding circumstances, the relationship of the parties, the motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and their subsequent conduct, etc.” 16. In Valliammal vs. Subramaniam, (2004) 7 SCC 233 , this issue was against considered by the Supreme Court India. Six parameters were discussed referring to Jaydayal Poddar’s Case (supra) it was observed that it is well-settled that the intention of the parties is the essence of benami transaction and money must have been provided by the party invoking the doctrine of benami. 17. These principles of law, so laid down, was again reiterated and discussed in Binapani Paul vs. Pratima Ghosh and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 100 referring to Thakur Bhim Singh’s Case (supra) as well as the four indicia laid down therein. It was observed by the Supreme Court of India in this case that the four factors should have to be considered cumulatively. It was observed by the Supreme Court of India in this case that the four factors should have to be considered cumulatively. The Court in this case considered the relationship of the parties, namely, husband and wife primarily motive of the transaction i.e. security for the wife and seven minor daughters as they were not protected by the prevailing law and the legal position at that material point of time. 18. Coming to the present case it is averred in the original Plaintiff that the properties, namely, premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta were purchased by his grand-father Nani Gopal Dutt in benami, in the name of Rani Bala Dutt since deceased. Rani Bala Dutt was name lender only but actual ownership was that of Nani Gopal Dutt. Loknath Dutt one of the Plaintiffs deposed in this case and stated in examination-in-chief that the said properties were purchased by his grand-father Nani Gopal Dutt in benami, in the name of late Rani Bala Dutt and consideration money was provided by the said Nani Gopal Dutt. It was further stated in examination-in-chief that Nani Gopal Dutt was a successful business man and Rani Bala Dutt was a housewife who used to remain behind the veil and that she did not have any personal income. It was further stated that the properties were purchased in the name of Rani Bala Dutt to hide them from the claim of the brothers. In course of cross-examination PW 1 conceded that at the time of execution of the deeds in respect of these two properties he was not present. He further conceded that at that time he was infant. He had never seen Rani Bala Dutt lived in the residential house. A specific question was asked to him as to whether Rani Bala Dutt received any money from Nani Gopal Dutt which answer was in negative; he stated that there was no question of Rani Bala asking for money because he was her husband. He could not find out from the history as to how the property was purchased from Rani Bala Dutt. He could not find out from the history as to how the property was purchased from Rani Bala Dutt. It is further stated in course of cross-examination that if Nani Gopal Dutt had actually paid the consideration money then objective of Nani Gopal Dutt for purchasing the property in the name of his wife would have failed because Nani Gopal Dutt had made this property in the name of his wife and not jointly with the family. Although it is stated by PW 1 that though it is not mentioned in the deed that property was purchased benami but they were aware of the fact that consideration money was paid by Nani Gopal Dutt. It is also stated by him that he was two years infant at the time of execution deed so personal knowledge cannot be put on him on the transaction. In course of cross-examination it is also conceded by him that he heard information from paternal uncle and thought consideration money relating to the documents was paid by Nani Gopal Dutt. 19. Original testimony of PW 1 states that he was two years old at the time of execution of deed in respect of the premises; he has no personal knowledge therefore. He derived his knowledge about execution and payment of consideration money from his paternal uncle. There is no other proof that consideration money was paid by Nani Gopal Dutt. It is specifically stated by PW 1 that Nani Gopal Dutt did not transfer any money to Rani Bala Dutt as they were husband and wife. A presumption which impressed him and which he reiterated all though out is that Rani Bala Dutt had no separate income for which consideration money must have been provided by her husband Nani Gopal Dutt. Nowhere, it is stated that Rani Bala Dutt had no stridhana property out of which he could have purchased the property. There is no evidence to show by any cogency the circumstances prevailing at the time of purchase of the properties or any intention of Nani Gopal Dutt to purchase the properties in the name of his wife. He indicated that the properties might have been purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in the name of his wife to hide it from his brothers. He indicated that the properties might have been purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in the name of his wife to hide it from his brothers. In that case the properties might have been purchased for the benefit of his wife Rani Bala Dutt as law prevailing at that material point of time was not enough to protect her interest. But no evidence was adduced. 20. In absence of anything more the available evidence adduced on behalf of the original Plaintiff failed to establish, by preponderance of probabilities, that the property was purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in the name of his wife in benami; that consideration money was paid by Nani Gopal Dutt and that Rani Bala is the only ostensible owner or name lender but the real owner of the Nani Gopal Dutt. Therefore, it is not established that the premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta were purchased by Nani Gopal Dutt in benami of his wife or that consideration money was provided by Nani Gopal Dutt. 21. Another aspect of law may be discussed here. The noted author Dwarka Nath Mitter in his seminal work named “The Position of Women in Hindu Law” published in the year 1913, discussed on proprietary rights of women over her stridhana properties in Chapter VI. The learned author referred to various authorities and expressed the view that land purchased by a woman with her saudayika stridhana becomes her stridhana and are subject to the same disposition which law gives her power to make of her saudayika. This would be the case even if the funds out of which lands were purchased were given to the wife by the husband, as opined. The learned author referred to the observations and finding of the Judicial Committee in Venkata vs. Venkata, ILR 2 Mad. 333 (PC). This would be the case even if the funds out of which lands were purchased were given to the wife by the husband, as opined. The learned author referred to the observations and finding of the Judicial Committee in Venkata vs. Venkata, ILR 2 Mad. 333 (PC). It was observed in that case: “It is suggested that where the funds are shown to have come wholly or in part from the husband, and have been afterwards invested in land by his widow, the same law which governs in the devolution of immoveable estate derived from the husband is to govern that acquisition : but their Lordships cannot find any trace of authority to support such a distinction, It is clearly the law that from the time the funds were given to the widow by the husband they became her stridhanam and that she had full power of disposition over them.” 22. In this case it is the plaint case that fund for purchase of the two properties in question was advanced by Nani Gopal Dutt which the original Plaintiffs failed to establish. P.W.1 was an infant at the material point of time of the purchase for which he could not state anything on the circumstances prevailing. He stated that no fund was transferred by Nani Gopal Dutt to Rani Bala Dutt for purchase of the said two properties. It might also be a situation where Rani Bala Dutt purchased the properties out of money given to her as gift. No evidence is there. Even if it is assumed that fund was advanced by Nani Gopal Dutt for purchase of the properties, in view of observation of the Judicial Committee, as aforesaid, the same properties should be treated as stridhana properties. 23. In absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be decided that Rani Bala Dutt was a benamdar and the real owner was Nani Gopal Dutt in respect of the two premises namely 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. 24. Ashim Kumar Dutt, son of the original Defendant Paresh Chandra Dutt stated in evidence that the properties were purchased by her grandmother Rani Bala Dutt out of stridhana. It is further stated by him that rents from the tenants in respect of the premises 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street was collected by Rani Bala Dutt through his father. 24. Ashim Kumar Dutt, son of the original Defendant Paresh Chandra Dutt stated in evidence that the properties were purchased by her grandmother Rani Bala Dutt out of stridhana. It is further stated by him that rents from the tenants in respect of the premises 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street was collected by Rani Bala Dutt through his father. Therefore, preponderance of evidences established that Rani Bala Dutt was the owner of the two premises namely 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. 25. Property purchased by a woman with her stridhana and savings of the income of stridhana constitute stridhana according to all schools of Hindu Law, as discussed by Sir D. F. Mulla. It does not make any difference whether the property is immovable or not. There is no presumption that property of a woman who has no income should be actually that of her husband. This is the presumption which impressed too much the plaintiff’s witness. It was held by Three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Sitaji vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, AIR 1954 SC 601 : “There is no presumption that any particular property in the widow's hands is part of husband's estate because a widow can have properties of her own. Therefore, he who claims must establish his right to it.” 26. In view of discussions stated above it is the conclusion that the two premises namely 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta were owned by Rani Bala Dutt as her stridhana property. 27. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are, therefore, decided against the original Plaintiff. 28. Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5and 6 are taken up together. 29. The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Paul Chowdhury argued on this point that since the properties in question were purchased by Rani Bala Dutt out of her stridhana, succession to such properties shall be in accordance to the law of Dayabhaga. According to him, irrespective of the source of stridhana, right of sons to inherit comes prior to the sons of the predeceased son. He relied upon the texts of Sir D.F. Mulla as well as Single Bench judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Mukherji vs. Nandarani Debi, ILR (1951) 1 Cal 581. 30. Rules of succession differ in case of inherited property and stridhana property. He relied upon the texts of Sir D.F. Mulla as well as Single Bench judgment of this Court in Prakash Chandra Mukherji vs. Nandarani Debi, ILR (1951) 1 Cal 581. 30. Rules of succession differ in case of inherited property and stridhana property. Referring to the text of Jimutavahana, the learned author Dwarka Nath Mitter commented that there is a clear distinction between inherited property and stridhana property. The learned author further opined that According to the rule laid down by the Judicial Committee in the case of Collector of Madura Mootoo Ramlinga Sathupathy, one would expect that inherited property would be regarded by the Courts as stridhana in tracts governed by the Milakshara, while, in provinces where the Influence of Jimutavaliana prevails, the Courts would exclude it from the category of stridhana. It is stated by Sir Mulla that succession to a woman’s stridhana varies according to the fact whether she was married or unmarried and whether the marriage was in an approved or unapproved form. It also varies according to the source from which stridhana came. Rules of descent differ in different schools but we are confined here with Dayabhaga School of succession. Rules of succession are discussed by both the authors with reference to the text of Dayabhaga. There are certain variations in the line of succession to different types of stridhana. In nutshell it was the rule that the son’s right to stridhana properties of mother comes earlier in order of succession and is preferred to that of the sons of a predeceased son: “Here it is expressly declared, that the mother’s goods are common to the son and unmarried daughter.” [Chapter IV, Section II, 7, Dayabhaga, Translation by H.T. Colebrooke] and further: “But for the cause above stated, the son and maiden daughter have a like right of succession. On failure of either of them, the goods belong to the other.” [Chapter IV, Section II, 9, Dayabhaga, Translation by H.T. Colebrooke] 31. Chapter IV Section II 25 expounds that what a woman receives at nuptial fire in certain forms of marriage like bramha, on death right to succession of such properties first devolve upon the maiden daughter; if there is none, then to the betrothed daughter; or for want of such, it goes to the married daughter including even a barren or widowed one; on failure of the daughters, it devolve on the son. 32. 32. In Prakash Chandra Mukherji vs. Nandarani Debi, ILR (1951) 1 Cal 581 Justice P.B. Mukherjee, referring to the original text of Dayabhaga observed: “There is a fundamental difference in the course of devolution between the property of a Hindu male and the stridhana property of a Hindu female. The first principle of difference is that women are given prior rights of succession in stridhana. The class of stridhana, with which the present case is concerned, is “anwadheyaka,” which is a gift from the father to his daughter after the daughter's marriage. In this class of stridhana, unbetrothed and betrothed daughters have a prior claim over the sons, but the sons have a prior claim over married daughters. So that the stridhana heirs of Sushila in this case would ordinarily be her sons. Therefore, Defendant Nanda Lal and Plaintiff Prakash would be the heirs. The question, however, is what about the other two sons Nirmal and Sudhir, who predeceased Sushila.” 33. It was observed that the rights of the son’s son come later to the son. There is no authority to suggest that the claim of the sons of a predeceased son is preferred to a son or daughter or are set on the same pedestal in matter of succession of stridhana property of a woman. When a son was living, the rights of the sons of a predeceased son do not come to the foreground or hold their sway. In nutshell, it is the conclusion that in absence of any daughter, it is the son who would inherit the stridhana properties of a woman. Therefore, the original Plaintiffs, being predeceased sons of the son of Rani Bala Dutt had no right, title or interest or right to succeed Rani Bala Dutt’s srtidhana properties. These properties namely premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta do not form part of joint properties as between the original Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The original Plaintiffs are not entitled to any partition in respect of the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. The original Defendant Paresh Chandra Dutt being the surviving son of Rani Bala Dutt inherited her stridhana properties and the properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street as well as 31, College Row, Calcutta. 34. Issue Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are decided accordingly against the original Plaintiffs. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta. The original Defendant Paresh Chandra Dutt being the surviving son of Rani Bala Dutt inherited her stridhana properties and the properties located at 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street as well as 31, College Row, Calcutta. 34. Issue Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are decided accordingly against the original Plaintiffs. 35. Preliminary decree in respect of 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Calcutta, 16, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta and 17, Beniatola Lane, Calcutta has already been drawn up. Since it is decided hereby that the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta and 31, College Row, Calcutta do not form part of the joint properties as between the original Plaintiffs and the Defendant and that these two later properties should not be subject to the present partition suit, no further preliminary decree need to be drawn up. 36. The Partition Commissioner had submitted report and examined as witness. Therefore, the suit should be fixed for hearing on the report of the Partition Commissioner and argument for passing final judgment. 37. Fix 10.03.2023 for argument.