ASHOK KUMAR Vs. KISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit by two brothers claiming a declaration in respect of immoveable properties and for possession of a part thereof and recovery of damages mesne profits in respect of the use and occupation of a part of it, inter alia, raises an interesting question as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which a limited estate, held by a Hindu widow, may mature into an absolute estate by virtue of the provision of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the suit are, by and large, beyond controversy. One Umrao Singh, who held joint Hindu family properties as the sole surviving coparcener, executed a Will on January 9, 1927, duly registered on January 27, 1927, in terms whereof he bequeathed one of the properties absolutely in favour of Kalawati, widow of his pre-deceased son, Onkar Prasad, and created two successive life estates in respect of other properties, one in favour of Kalawati aforesaid, and the other in favour of her daughter, Shanti Devi, then an infant, and purported to bequeath the absolute ownership of the properties, forming subject-matter of life estates, to the male issue of Shanti Devi. Onkar Prasad had died in 1922. Umrao Singh died in 1928. Kalawati died in 1967 and Shanti Devi died in 1969. Kalawati assumed control and possession of the properties, forming subject matter of the absolute estate, as well as the life estate, and during her life time, alienated the property, which formed subject matter of the absolute estate in her favour. When she died in 1967, she was survived not only by her daughter, Shanti Devi, but also a son, Krishan Kuma.r, defendant No. 1, who was admittedly born to Kalawati, but according to the plaintiffs, not during the lifetime of her husband or soon thereafter, but after a lapse of 10 years of the death of Onkar Prasad and was, therefore, an illegitimate child. When Shanti Devi died in 1969, the plaintiffs were admittedly her only male issues. During the lifetime of Kalawati. Krishan Kumar, defendant No. 1, was living with his mother in a part of one of the properties and continued to be in possession of that portion after her death. Defendants 2 to 5 are the tenants in the properties and were paying rent to Kalawati. Defendant No. 6 is another tenant, who had apparently been inducted in a portion of the property by defendant No. 1.

(3.) Plaintiffs claim relief in the suit on the basis of and purely in terms of the will of Umrao Singh. They contend that in terms of the will the properties forming subject matter of the suit, became their exclusive and absolute estate on the death of Kalawati and Shanti Devi. The claim is sought to be defeated by defendant No. 1 on the ground that on a true construction of the will it must be held that the will conferred an absolute estate in favour of Kalawati and on her death the property devolved on Shanti Devi and defendant No. 1 in equal share as the only heirs of Kalawati. In the alternative, it is claimed that if Kalawati or the life estate under the will matured into an absolute estate by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession had a life estate such a bequest was either bad in law and she became absolute owner by virtus of adverse possession Act. It is, therefore, urged that either way on her death the properties devolved on defendant No. 1 and Shanti Devi in equal shares. Various other pleas were raised with regard to the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction and court fees and non-joinder of parties.