The Hindu Law
Section 181B
Legal necessity–– Legal necessity does not mean actual compulsion. It means pressure upon the estate which in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient. The onus of proving legal necessity may be discharged by the alienee by proof that he made proper and confide enquires about the existence of necessities and that he did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of necessity. ––Bhadra Bewa, wife of Babu Ram Gain inherited 2 anna share of her husband and she was in possession through bargader. She had no earning members except her two daughters who could not cultivate their land. The plaintiffs only stated in the plaint that Bhadra Bewa was solvent, but did not state how she was solvent and how much assets she had except the suit land. As she was widow, she had to maintain herself and her family with hardship. No hard and fast rule can be expected on the question whether a widow in possession of very little property left by her husband can or cannot sell the same for her future maintenance. ––The facts and circumstances of the case, this Division finds that the plaintiff-respondents failed to prove that there were more assets with money in cash so that Bhadra Bewa could run her life with her rest family members after the death of her husband, Babu Ram Gain as claimed by the plaintiff-respondents. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. .....Nirapada Sarder =VS= Babu Ram Gain, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 52] ....View Full Judgment

Hindu Law— Section 205— Life interest of widow-transfer-validity of—
Transfer made by a Hindu widow of the property of her deceased husband without legal necessity where she has got life interest although invalid will be binding upon the widow during her life time. After her death the transfer being invalid the said property shall revert to the revisioner.
Sharashi Bala Sarker and others Vs. Patani Sundari Dassaya and another. 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 108.

Hindu Law (Mulla's) Section 415
Alienation of Debutter Property
It appears that the High Court Division while dismissing the appeal found that the trial Court rightly held that the suit property having been vested in the Deity Sree Sree Gopal Jew Bigraha became debutter property and Khepa Chand Bairagi having been inducted in the suit property as Shebait cannot alienate the said debutter property to the defendants-appellants; that the defendant-appellants being the heirs of the Shebait, Khepa Chan Bairagi, have the right of performing the religious rites of the Deity as Shebait and are not entitled to retained their possession by performing the duties of the shebait but they are not entitled to transfer the said debutter property. - we are of the view that the High Court Division by the impugned judgment and decree rightly affirmed those passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court Division which does not call for any interference by this Court. Narendra Chandra Das & Anr Vs. Sree Sree Gopal Bigraha & Ors 21 BLT (AD) 10

No adoption is valid according to the Hindu law unless :- The person adopting is lawfully capable of taking in adoption, the person giving in adoption must be lawfully capable of giving adoption and the person adopted must be lawfully capable of being taken in adoption,the adoption is completed by actual giving and taking and the ceremony called datta homam (oblation to fire) has been performed. The datta homam ceremony is not essential in all cases to the validity of adoption. Sree Dhaneshar Paul -Vs.- Sree Khogen Chandra Paul 3 ALR(2014)(1)(AD) 155

Hindu law does not apply where a person enters into a religious order renouncing all worldly affairs, his action is tantamount to Civil death, and it excludes him altogether from inheritance and from a share on partition. ...Probir Kumar Dey@ Saiful & anr Vs. Shipra Rani Dey & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 154 ....View Full Judgment

Marriage declaration under Hindu Law–
The High Court Division considered that defendant No. 1 was an educated person, and being a doctor, he maintained a Chamber which was frequently visited by the plaintiff and they developed a love affair and, thereafter, went through a wedding at a temple, namely Bazalia Panchanan Sheba Sangha Mondir. They lived together as husband and wife and the plaintiff gave birth to a female child. The High Court Division observed that the Court of appeal being the last Court of fact discussed the evidence on record and decreed the suit and declined to interfere with the judgement and decree. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgement of the High Court Division. We find no merit in the civil petition for leave to appeal, which is dismissed. .....Dr. Shimul Kanti Sushil =VS= Neli Rudra, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 220] ....View Full Judgment

Legal necessity for transferring the land–
Instituted Title Suit No. 103 of 1997 for partition of ejmali property– It is true that in this kabala dated 02.03.1997 it has been mentioned that for performing the Shradhya ceremonies of her parents Komoda sold this land to the plaintiff. But this recital only in the document is not enough to prove that actually there was legal necessity for transferring this land by Komoda-who, admittedly, had life interest only in the land in question. Evidence is necessary to prove that actually there was legal necessity for transferring this land by Komoda. .....Abdus Sobhan Munshi =VS= Komada Daishya & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 410] ....View Full Judgment

It appears that the trial court, on proper examination and assessment of all these evidence, rightly found that it had not been proved at all that Komoda sold the suit land to the plaintiff for performing Shradhya of her parents and that she actually performed Shradhya of her parents. We find no reason to differ with these findings and decision of the trial court. It is also not believable that Komoda sold this land to perform Shradhya of her father-who admittedly died long 50/60 years before and of her mother-who also died long 5/6 years before depriving the reversioners. So we are unable to accept this story. .....Abdus Sobhan Munshi =VS= Komada Daishya & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 410] ....View Full Judgment

A Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can maintain a suit for partition:
If a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest is not allowed to pray for partition of the joint properties by metes and bounds, then she would be deprived of enjoying her such right, as in the absence of partition by metes and bounds, she would not be able to enjoy her life interest therein. And if it is held that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest would not be able to file a suit for partition, then the other co-sharers of the joint properties may use such decision as lever against such Hindu woman and thus create obstructions in the enjoyment of her life interest in the joint properties. Therefore, we find no substance in the point that plaintiff No.1 not being a co-sharer in the suit khatain and having life interest only could not maintain the suit for partition. And we hold that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can very much maintain a suit for partition for the fullest enjoyment of her such right in the joint properties. .....Md. Abdus Sattar Miah =VS= Sreemati Raman Sona Dashya & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 220] ....View Full Judgment

Hindu law r/w
Caste Disability Removal Act, 1850
Bangladesh Laws (Revision and Declaration Act, 1973
It is pertinent to note that Hindu law is religious law, the right to property is made by that law dependent upon the observance of the tenants of that faith. Consequently, a lapse from orthodox practices of Hinduism would under that law entail forfeiture of the caste and all rights to property and inheritance. Renouncement of religion has a disability, but after the passing of the Caste Disability Removal Act, 1850 (Act XXI of 1950), change of religion is no ground of exclusion of inheritance. But after the repealing of the Act XXI of 1850 by the Bangladesh Laws (Revision and Declaration Act, 1973 (Act No. VIII of 1973) the persons converts into another religion are now forfeited from the inheritance and from the joint family property and fathers property. ...Probir Kumar Dey@ Saiful & anr Vs. Shipra Rani Dey & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 154 ....View Full Judgment

Hindu Law on Religious and Charitable Trust
Whether any person other than a shebait can prosecute a suit as a next friend of the deity.
In the instant case, most of the shebaits have already left the country or have since died. A few who are in this country are dormant and have not been taking any interest in the cause of the deity and play its next friend. In the circumstances Pradip Kumar Chakraborty who is admittedly a pujari and a worshipper of the deity and has offered himself to act as next friend of the deity can by no means be precluded from representing the deity as such. Sri Sri Dasha Bhuja Mata Vs. Jamila Khatun Bibi & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-211

Hindu Personal Law
Legal necessity - recital
In the instance ease one transaction by Exhibit-B. where transfer is challenged after lapse of considerable long time then recital in the document being of long past can legally be considered, in the light of observation in the case reported in AIR 1916 P.C. 110. genuine and the court may taking the recital along with the circumstances go for making its decision as to validity of the deed. [Para-21] Jitendra Nath Mistrv vs. Abdul Maleke Howlader & Ors. 10BLT (AD)-150

Diety has its perpetual entity and an idol is always a minor and should be represented by shebayet—
A property once made a debattor property and is dedicated to a diety it remains as such and never can be turned into a secular property. Record of rights of the C.S. Khatian have the presumption of correctness. Debattar property cannot be treated as enemy property. Abdul Aziz and another Vs. Hindu Diety Luxmi Gobinda Jew and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 22.

Transfer of ejmali property by a member of Hindu joint family—
A member of Hindu joint family governed by Dayabhaga school can dispose of his undivided ancestral property by sale, will or gift even though the same were not partitioned by metes and bounds. No vested property case with regard to the Hindu property can be started after 23.03.1974 on which date the Ordinance No.l of 1969 was repealed. A lessee on year to year basis lease of vested property has no locus-standi to challenge the impugned decree or prefer an appeal there against. Aroti Rani Paul (Sreetnati) Vs. Sree Shudarshan Kumar Paul and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 43.

Shebayet— Rights and responsibilities—
Shebayet of a Hindu deity is a manager of the debattar property and he performs the sheba puja. He has no title or heritable right to the said property. When the Shebayet left for India he ceases to be Shebayet and he has no authority to appoint Ramesh Chandra Barman as Shebayat by a power of attorney which is of no legal effect. Ramesh Chandra Barman Vs. Sree Sree Kala Charan Jieu TJwkur and another 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 8.

Hindu law of inheritance
According to the Hindu law, there is no scope to inherit property by a daughter when a son is alive. .....Sufia Bewa and ors Vs. Md. Aminul Islam and ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 85 ....View Full Judgment

Hindu Law— Life interest of widow-legal necessity and transfer—
A Hindu widow enjoys life interest in the estate of her deceased husband. She can transfer such property only on the ground of legal necessity. Transfer by a Hindu widow of the property of her husband without legal necessity is not valid and the reversioner can get the restoration of the same. Sekandar Ali Shaikh (Md) and others Vs. Sree Dilip Kumar. 3,MLR(1998) (AD) 69.

A plaintiff’s failure never means that the defendant is the lawful owner of the subject matter:
On a contradictory claim of title on land between the plaintiff and defendant, if the plaintiff fails, everyone thinks that the claimant-defendant is the owner of the suit land. It is absolutely a wrong notion and misconceived social psychology. A plaintiff’s failure never means that the defendant is the lawful owner of the subject matter. In a case like the present one where the defendants, besides resisting the plaintiffs’ claim, fail to establish their lawful title over the suit land, they should not be allowed to continue with the possession, if any, over the same. .....Sufia Bewa and ors Vs. Md. Aminul Islam and ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 85 ....View Full Judgment

Hindu Marriage— Nuptial rites— Minor variation does not invalidate marriage—
A Hindu marriage is complete as soon as the seven steps are completed. Nuptial rites in Hindu Shastra are complicated and are not easy of comprehension by ordinary participants. Once the fact of marriage is established there is the presumption of valid marriage. Minor variations do not render the marriage invalid. Utpal Kanti Das Vs. Monju Rani Das. 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 76.

Hindu Law— Deity can sue by next friend—
It is the settled law that a deity can sue or be sued through Shebait as the next friend. When Shebait fails to discharge his responsibility honestly, worshipper or any person interested in the endowment can sue to protect the debattar property. Pradip Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Jamila Khatun Bibi and others. 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 275.

Hindu Law— Adoption—
Adoption in Hindu Law is a formal act having far reaching consequences material as well as spiritual and it is generally evidenced by a document. By adoption a person passes out of the family to which he belonged by birth and is transplanted into the family which adopts him. Perumal Vs. Government of Pakistan. 15 DLR (1963) (SC) 58.

Adopted son stands equal to natural son—
The word "issue" includes "child". Under the Hindu Law the adopted son in relation to his adopted father stands equally with the natural son in temporal and spiritual matters. Hindu Law does not make distinction between a natural son and adopted son in the matter of inheritence, whether it is in the application of personal law or secular law, the adopted son has the same status with the natural son. Adoption of a surda is not contrary to Hindu Dayabhaga Law. Anath Bandhu Guha Vs. Sudhangsu She/chore Dey. 31 DLR (1979) (AD) 312.

Daughter of a prostitute inherits her mother's property—
Daughter of a prostitute is entitled to inherit the property of her mother. Question of her legitimacy or illegitimacy is irrelevant. Geeta Rani Vs. Bangladesh. 36 DLR (1984) (AD) 225.

Hindu joint family property-Accretion by joint income—
Under the Hindu Law if nucleus of joint property exists by the income or out of the proceeds of the property which is claimed, as self acquisition of any particular member of the family may have been acquired such property will be presumed to be the property of the joint Hindu family till the contrary is proved. Perumol Vs. Government of Pakistan. 15 DLR (1963) (SC) 58.

Joint family property— Burden of proof-
Burden of proof is shifted when the family possessed jointly some property which constitutes the nucleus to acquire property. Ramesh Chandra Dutta Vs. Nimaikumar Datta 34 DLR (1982) (AD) 83.

Unchastity of widow—
The sole reason for giving her right of inheritence to her husband's property, according to the Texts of Hindu Law is the spiritual benefit she may render to the departed soul as his wife. Acts of un-chastity by a woman, which may be of different grades, may not amount to disavowal of her marital relationship and defacto abandonment of her character as the widow of the deceased husband. Unchastity of the widow is a ground to render her incapable to confer spiritual benefit on her late husband thereby barring her right to inherit husband's property. Remarriage of the widow disentitles her from inheriting her late husband's property.
Widow's right to her husband's property is subject to certain restrictions i.e. she has the right to alienate the property absolutely for what is known as "legal necessity" namely for payment of husband's debts, for performance of acts which conduce to the spiritual welfare of the husband, for discharging obligation of her husband for her own maintenance and for the preservation of the estate. Widow has got life interest and after her death the property shall go to the heirs of her husband and not to her own heirs. Nurunnabi Vs. Joynal Abedin. 29 DLR (1977) (SC) 137.

Rights of Shebait of Debattar property—
The rights of a shebait / Mohant are that so long as he retains the office he is presumed to have the sole management of the endowment or institution over which he presides. He is in no sense the owner of the property. His position is that of a Mutwalli under Muslim law or a shebait under Hindu Law. The right which he has is derived from his appointment to an office. Mian Ahmed Ali Vs. Rehabilitation Authority. 16 DLR (1964) (SC) 325.

Widow estate—life interest
The High Court Division summarily rejected the application holding that Kiron Bala after death of her husband got the property in life interest and therefore she had no saleable interest in the land. The transfer of the land by her in favour of the Progati Sangshad by way of gift was thus illegal and void. Thus it appears the High Court Division enunciated the correct position of law. Accordingly High Court Division did not commit any illegality. M.S. Zaman & Anr Vs. Kazimuddin Feraji & Ors 19 BLT (AD) 139.

Hindu Law
Next friend
A pujari and a worshipper of the deity who has offered himself to act as next friend of the Deity can by no means be precluded from representing the Deity. Narendra Chandra Das & Anr Vs. Sree Sree Copal Bigraha & Ors 21 BLT(AD)01.

Hindu Law
Debutter Property
The C.S. Khatians were correctly prepared and published in the name of Deity Sree Sree Gopal Jew Bigraha and Had Priya Baisnabi as the Shebait and the said property belonged to Niskar Brahmmatra and completely dedicated to the plaintiff Deity. -Once the suit property is vested in the Deity it cannot be divested. Narendra Chandra Das & Anr Vs. Sree Sree Gopal Bigraha & Ors 21 BLT (AD) 01.

Hindu Personal Law
Whether a believer of 'vishno' could perform 'Shashan Kalipuja'
Held; The High Court Division took note of the contention of defendant No.l that P.W.I admitted that he was a believer of 'Vishno' and therefore he could not perform Shashan Kalipuja. In order to resolve the contention, the High Court Division considered the evidence of P.W.I, who stated in cross-examination that his mother was cremated in the suit cremation ground. The High Court Division also repelled the contention that mere cremation of P.W.l's mother in the suit cremation ground would not confer him any right to perform 'Shashan Kalipuja' since he was not a believer of the said rites as under: "The "Nitisare" tells, us "neither through colour nor through ancestor can the spirit worthy of Brahman be generated," Thus according to it cast division should not be by birth but by capacity." The High Court Division observed that a man could rise by capacity and merit; therefore, the High Court division found that the above contention could not hold good. -The findings arrived at and the decision made by the High Court Division having been made on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. Paresh Chandra Biswas Vs. Shree Shree Shashan Kalimata Idol & Ors 21 BLT (AD) 339.

Legal necessity for transferring land:
It is true that in this kabala dated 02.03.1997 it has been mentioned that for performing the Shradhya ceremonies of her parents Komoda sold this land to the plaintiff. But this recital only in the document is not enough to prove that actually there was legal necessity for transferring this land by Komoda-who, admittedly, had life interest only in the land in question. Evidence is necessary to prove that actually there was legal necessity for transferring this land by Komoda. …Abdus Sobhan Munshi vs. Komada Daishya & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] AD 11 ....View Full Judgment

A Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can maintain a suit for partition:
If a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest is not allowed to pray for partition of the joint properties by metes and bounds, then she would be deprived of enjoying her such right, as in the absence of partition by metes and bounds, she would not be able to enjoy her life interest therein. And if it is held that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest would not be able to file a suit for partition, then the other co-sharers of the joint properties may use such decision as lever against such Hindu woman and thus create obstructions in the enjoyment of her life interest in the joint properties. Therefore, we find no substance in the point that plaintiff No.1 not being a co-sharer in the suit khatain and having life interest only could not maintain the suit for partition. And we hold that a Hindu widow or a Hindu woman having life interest can very much maintain a suit for partition for the fullest enjoyment of her such right in the joint properties. …Md. Abdus Sattar Miah Vs Sreemati Raman Sona Dashya & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] AD 88

According to Hindu Law any act done in contravention of the Hindu texts which are in their nature mandatory cannot be said to be lawful by applying the principle of factum valet. Hence, the principle of factum valet is ineffectual in the case of adoption in contravention of the provision of legal texts. …Palash Chandra Saha Vs. Shimul Rani Saha & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] AD 88

Saha are of the business community and are not of the scheduled caste, therefore not Sudra. …Palash Chandra Saha Vs. Shimul Rani Saha & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] AD 88

Even if he was accepted as a family member, the legality of the adoption must be considered. The provision of Hindu Law is clear that there cannot be adoption across castes. In other words, a child from one caste cannot be legally adopted by a member of another caste. …Palash Chandra Saha Vs. Shimul Rani Saha & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] AD 88 ....View Full Judgment

Hindu law
Mother of the plaintiffs, as holder of life interest only, could not have sold the entire land– We are of the view that the five deeds of sale executed and registered by Saraswati were not forged and fraudulent. However, since the whole transfer could not be attributed to legal necessity, and since the parties concerned evidently agreed that 4.62 acres of land out of 8.31 acres transferred by way of the five sale deeds, was to be returned to the plaintiffs, the provisions of Hindu law have not been impinged in any way.
The appeal is allowed in part and the judgement passed by the High Court Division is set aside. The sale of land in favour of the plaintiffs’ sons according to their wish and in accordance with the terms of the Salish, is found to have validly reconveyed 4.62 acres of land in favour of the plaintiffs’ sons. We find that the transfer of the remaining 3.69 acres of land by Saraswati to the defendants to meet her legal necessity is valid and is within the provisions of Hindu law. The defendants are hereby directed to hand over possession of 4.62 acres of land to the plaintiffs, if they have not already done so. …Hachina Aktar Banu (Most.) =VS= Ananta Kumar Sikder, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 4] ....View Full Judgment

The Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850
The Hindu Law
Cross-caste adoption– The provision of Hindu Law is clear that there cannot be adoption across castes. In other words, a child from one caste cannot be legally adopted by a member of another caste. Mr. A.J. Mohammad Ali argued that the prohibition of cross-caste adoption had been lifted due to the promulgation of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. But he abandoned the argument when Mr. Neogi pointed out that the said law was not applicable in Bangladesh. ...Palash Chandra Saha =VS= Shimul Rani Saha, [9 LM (AD) 16] ....View Full Judgment

The Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850
The Hindu Law
Cross-caste adoption– The provision of Hindu Law is clear that there cannot be adoption across castes. In other words, a child from one caste cannot be legally adopted by a member of another caste. Mr. A.J. Mohammad Ali argued that the prohibition of cross-caste adoption had been lifted due to the promulgation of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. But he abandoned the argument when Mr. Neogi pointed out that the said law was not applicable in Bangladesh. ...Palash Chandra Saha =VS= Shimul Rani Saha, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 16] ....View Full Judgment

The Hindu law
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 123
The rules of pure Hindu law that the delivery of property is essential to the validity of gift has been abrogated– The trial Court was absolutely wrong in holding that according to the Hindu law the possession must be handed over to the donee inasmuch as in view of the provisions of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, the rules of pure Hindu law that the delivery of property is essential to the validity of gift has been abrogated. The Appellate Court on detailed discussion of the provisions of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act reversed the said finding of the trial Court and it also rightly relied upon the case of Hari Kison Pandy-Vs-Nages Wari Debi and others, 8DLR 65. Mr. Bhuiyan also conceded that the Appellate Court took the correct view as to the non requirement of delivery of possession of the gifted land to the donee to make a registered deed of gift by a Hindu effective in view of the provisions of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. We find merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is allowed. ...Tapash Kanti Majumder=VS=Sailandra Kumar Majumder, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 59] ....View Full Judgment