RANI BAI Vs. YADUNANDAN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissing the suit of the appellant for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit properties and for possession thereof.

(2.) Jangi Jogi had inherited from his father properties consisting of some groves and a house in village Mukundpur which was in the erstwhile State of Rewa which later became a part of the State now called Madhya Pradesh. He had a son Laldas who is stated to have died in 1945 leaving the appellant, his widow, as his heir and legal representative. After the death of Laldas Jangi Jogi is alleged to have married Mst. Jugli Bai in the year 1948. Jangi Jogi himself died sometime in 1950. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have raised a claim to the properties of Jangi Jogi by virtue of a gift deed. On the basis of that deed he moved the Criminal Courts under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and on December 29, 1962 an order was made direction the possession of the properties to be delivered to the said respondent. The appellant, therefore, instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge at Rewa for a declaration in respect of her rights and for possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint. The suit was instituted by the appellant along with Jugli Bai the widow of Jangi Jogi. Respondent No. 1 who was the sole defendant in the suit put up several pleas claiming, inter alia, that he had been in continuous possession of the suit properties for more than twelve years and had become the owner. Alternatively it was pleaded if any one could have any interest it would be plaintiff No. 2 Jugli Bai but she had as a matter of fact not joined in the suit and her thumb impression on the paint had been obtained by fraud. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as 12 issues. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No. 2 Jugli Bai entered into compromise with respondent No. 1 giving up all her claims.

(3.) The trial Court found that the thumb impression of plaintiff had not been obtained by fraud but that she had changed sides much to the disadvantage of the appellant. As regards the deed of gift set up by respondent No. 1, it was found that Jangi Jogi had never made such a gift. It was further found that the appellant was in possession until she had been dispossessed by respondent No. 1 by means of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. According to the trial Court the said respondent had illegally occupied the lands for some time and since the proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C., resulted in his favour he was put into possession through the process taken under those proceedings. So far as the title of respondent No. 1 was concerned it was found that his position was that of a mere trespasser. The trial Court however, non-suited the appellant on the ground that since her husband had died in the lifetime of Jangi Jogi the latter's estate devolved on his widow jugli Bai who would be his only heir an she had entered into a compromise with respondent No. 1. The appellant went up in appeal to the Court of District Judge, Rewa. The learned District Judge examined the point whether the compromise entered into by one of the plaintiffs Jugli Bai with the defendant was valid and should have been given effect to by the trial Court. According to him it could not be said that the appellant had no right or interest in the properties left by Jangi Jogi. He felt that the compromise which had been entered into by Jugli Bai and the defendant should not have been accepted, as the appellant was not a party to that compromise. He was further of the view that the trial Court had not decided all the matters which arose for decision. He, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial Court and remanded the case with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number and dispose it of in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1 filed a second appeal be before the High Court. The High Court took the view that the present appellant could have no interest in the properties left by Jangi Jogi. She could not take advantage of the Provision of Section 3 (2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 which conferred certain rights on the widow of a predeceased son in view of the decision of Federal Court in Umayal Achi vs. Lakshmi Achi, 1945 FCR 1. The aforesaid Act had been extended to Rewa State by the Part C (State Laws) Act, 1950 which came into force on April 16, 1950. It was urged, inter alia, before the High Court that the appellant could take a boy in adoption and as soon as such an adoption was made its effect would be that the adoptee would be the son not only of the widow but of her deceased husband as well and further that she had a claim for maintenance over the suit lands. The High Court disposed of this contention by saying: