[ad_1]
Observing the verdict, the court said that the existing law in Bangladesh (Hindu Women’s Property Law, 1936) made no distinction (agricultural or non-agricultural) in the property left by the husband. As a result, according to current law, the widow claims the right to the agricultural land left by her husband.
Khulna Batiaghata Jyotindra Nath Mandal’s request (review case) was rejected by the Justice on Wednesday. The observation came in the verdict of the sole court of the Miftah Uddin Chowdhury High Court.
Md. He was the petitioner’s attorney in court. Abdul Jabbar. Nafiul Islam was the lawyer against him.
Lawyer Ujjal Bhowmik has given his opinion in the case as amicus curiae.
After the verdict, Ujjal Bhowmik told bdnews24.com: “There is a legal obligation to observe the verdict. The lower courts of the country are obliged to accept this observation. As a result of this verdict, the Hindu widows of the country will be able to occupy the agricultural land. left by their husbands. Until now, widows were the sole owners of non-agricultural land. Now the widow’s right to all her husband’s assets has been established. “
The lawyer said that before 1937, Hindu widows had the right to property in the absence of their children. After the enactment of the “Hindu Women’s Property Right Act” in 1936, Hindu widows were given the same rights as their children in any property (agricultural-non-agricultural) left by their husbands.
That is, if the widow has a child, she will get the same property. If the widow has three children, the property will be equal to four parts, and if she has two children, it will be equal to three parts. If there is a son, it will be equal to two, like this.
In 1941, the Federal Court of India revoked the rights of Hindu widows in the case of agricultural land.
Lawyer Ujjwal Bhowmik said: “Before 1982, this provision was in force according to the ruling of the Federal Court of India. But after the country’s independence in 1972, the government of Bangladesh directly adopted the Hindu Women’s Property Rights Act of 1936.
“Since the original law referred to any property of the husband in the case of the property rights of Hindu widows, the same law was further clarified in today’s court statement.”
On several occasions, the Bangladeshi courts have followed the 1941 judgment of the Federal Court of India, the lawyer said. Once again, Judge Mostafa Kamal Roy (who is 34 DLR) has said that he will get the right to agricultural land. We have such a conflicting verdict in the case of share shares. This is the only real problem in this copyright case. “
According to the case file, following the death of Abhimunya Mandal from Halia village in Batiaghata, Khulna, the agricultural lands left by him were registered in the name of his wife Gauri Dasir.
Gauri Dasir’s brother-in-law, Jyotindra Nath Mandal, filed a case in the Khulna Court of Assistant Judges in 1997 to correct the record.
The court dismissed his request on May 30 of that year. Although Jyotindra Nath Mandal’s appeal was rejected after several judgments of the Federal Court of India and the High Court of Bangladesh in 1941, the court observed that Gauri Dasi Swami would not obtain the right to agricultural property from Abhimunya Mandal.
Jyotindra Nath Mandal appealed against the verdict to the Khulna Joint District Court of Judges. On March 8, 2004, the court rejected Jyotindra Nath Mandal’s application.
According to the verdict, the widow Gauri Dasi will obtain the agricultural property left by her husband.
The ruling further stated: “Since the nature of the state of Bangladesh has changed and since the government of the state of Bangladesh is monolithic and there is no legal incompetence of the Parliament of Bangladesh in enacting laws relating to agricultural land, the ruling of the Federal Court of India in 1941 does not apply to us. “
That same year, Jyotindra Nath filed a petition for review in Mandal High Court against the verdict.
The Superior Court rendered the verdict on Wednesday after hearing the appeal.
[ad_2]
