SHYAM LAL Vs. MANSURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this plaintiff's second appeal, who died during the pendency of second appeal, states under: -

(2.) The suit properties mentioned in Schedule A & B of the plaint were self-acquired properties of Hiran - father of original plaintiff Sahni which were settled in his name during the Surguja State Settlement vide Ex.P- According to the plaint averment, Hiran died in the year 1964-65 and the suit properties were succeeded by his widow Bundeli and his daughter plaintiff Sahni. They are averred to be Hindus and said to be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is their further case that when the defendants started interfering in the suit property, it was brought to the light that a gift deed dated 10-2-1966 (Ex.D-1) was said to have been executed by Bundeli (widow of Hiran) in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 which is pleaded to be obtained fraudulently and it was also pleaded that the plaintiff's mother - Bundeli was not competent to execute the gift deed of undivided family property so as to bind the plaintiff, as the suit property was jointly held by widow of Hiran - Bundeli and daughter Sahni.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement before the trial Court and disputed the date of death of Hiran by stating inter alia that Hiran died in the year 1960-61 and at that time, the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 had already come into force with effect from 2-10-1959 and the properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint were inherited solely and exclusively by his widow Bundeli under Section 164 of the Code (unamended) and therefore she was competent to gift the property in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 by gift and it has rightly been gifted vide Ex.D1 dated 10-2-1966.