CHHAGANRAM NATHURAM PANDYA Vs. NAGINLAL SAMPATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise from the same judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Broach in the plaintiffs suit in which they had challenged certain alienations and gifts which were made by the deceased widow Bai Suraj.

(2.) The properties in question belonged to one Ishvar Narottam Pandya of village Dora in Amod Taluka. The said Ishvar Narottam died in about Samvat Year 1960-61 i. e. about 1905 A. D. Leaving behind him his widow Bai Suraj without any issue. Consequently Bai Suraj got only a widows estate in the properties in question. The plaintiffs alleged they were the reversioner's and their geneological table was given which is undisputed before us and which was as under:-

(3.) Taking up the plaintiffs appeal first the dispute is in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule VI. By a gift deed Exhibit 69 dated 20 May 1950 six plots bearing s. Nos. A.G. 118/4 of 1-36 125/1 of 1-21 295/3 of 2-22 341/2 of 1-33 132/2 of 1-7 131/2 of 2-3 in all admeasuring 11 Acres and 2 Gunthas and one house had been gifted by Bai Suraj to Sampats son (brothers son) Naginlal who is defendant No. 7. But on that date Naginlal was aged only 16 years and the document was executed by Bai Suraj also as guardian on behalf of Naginlal. Thereafter the plaintiffs had challenged the said gift by filing Civil Suit No. 140/51 against Bai Jadav the mother of defendant No. 7 as guardian of defendant No. 7. In that suit by the judgment dated 11th July 1952 the said gift deed was held to be not binding on the plaintiffs who were the next reversioners of the deceased Ishvar Narottam the husband of Bai Suraj. However as the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession during the life time of Bai Suraj the relief of injunction prohibiting the defendants from interfering while taking possession was refused. After the said suit was decided the plaintiffs asked for mutation of the fields in question and by the order Exhibit 104 dated 17th May 1953 six plots were removed from the name of defendant No. 7 and were mutated in the name of Bai Suraj. It is the case of defendant No. 7 in his deposition Exhibit 99 that after he became major he did not exercise the option to accept the gift and that the possession of the properties remained with Suraj. Thereafter Bai Suraj had on or about 28th March 1957 filed an application in the Tenancy Court for getting possession of those lands from the various tenants after giving notice to terminate tenancy as per Exhibit 107. In the said suit as found from Exhibit 105 permission to sell those lands to defendants 8 and 9 under sec. 64C of the Tenancy Act was given by the Mahalkari on 21 August 1957. In view thereof two sale deeds one Exhibit 59 for S. No. 341/2 in favour of defendant No. 8 and the other Exhibit 67 for four S. Nos. 132/2 111 125 and 295/3 were executed by the defendant No. 7 as power of attorney holder of Bai Suraj. Both these deeds were executed on 1st February 1958. As for the house which also formed part of the gift deed Exhibit 69 the sale deed was passed in favour of defendant No. 10 also on the same day. Bai Suraj thereafter died on 10th February 1958.