BADRI PRASAD Vs. CHANDRAKANTABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the agreement between the Counsel for the parties that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the heirs and legal representatives of respondent no. 3 who has died, there is no need for taking any steps for substitution proceedings. It is also agreed that the statement of learned counsel for the appellants that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have also died, is not correct. In fact, they are still alive. We, therefore, proceed to hear this appeal.

(2.) Defendant nos. 1 to 3 are in appeal before us. In the year 1949, one shankarlal died leaving his widow, Smt. Shivrani, and the daughters who are respondents in this appeal. It is alleged that in the year 1951, Smt. Shivrani, remarried one hariram from whom a son was born to her. Subsequently, Smt. Shivrani again remarried one Haricharan from whom a girl was born. On 20. 12.1966, Smt. Shivrani executed a sale deed in favour of defendant-appellants in respect of the property purported to have been inherited from deceased Shankarlal. On 26.7.1977, the plaintiff-respondents, who are the daughters of Shankarlal, brought a suit for declaration that the sale deed, dated 20. 12.1966 executed by Smt. Shivrani was null and void, as she forfeited her right over the property on her remarriage with Hariram. A written statement was filed by the defendant-appellants wherein the factum of remarriage by Smt. Shivrani as alleged in the plaint was not denied. However, the trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the sale deed was without any consideration. On appeal by defendant-appellants, the lower Appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial court. The high Court in second appeal, filed by the plaintiff-respondents, found that in view of the admission made by the defendant- appellants in their written statement that smt. Shivrani had remarried, allowed the appeal and restored the decree passed by the trial court. It is against the said judgment the defendants are in appeal before us.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that in view of statement by Smt. Shivrani in her examination-in- chief that she never married Hariram and thereafter Haricharan and her relationship with them was like a mistress and, therefore, under such circumstances she was not divested of her right in respect of the property in dispute and thus the judgment under appeal deserves to be set aside. This argument has no merit. The defendants in para 2 of the written statement stated which reads thus: