RAM DHAKELI Vs. SUKHRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal from a decree cancelling a sale-deed executed by defendant-appellant no. 1 in favour of the second appellant who was the 8th defendant in the suit, to the extent of 1/2 of the 1/2 share sold and also cancelling a deed of surrender executed by the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in favour of the second appellant. These are the relevant facts : One Man Singh had two sons Ujagar Singh and Sukhnandan Singh. The plaintiff Smt. Sukhrani is the widow of Sukhnandan. Defendant nos. 2 to 7 who are respondent nos. 2 to 7, represented the branch of Ujagar Singh. The property in suit is in the nature of agricultural land of which Man Singh was the Sir-holder before the abolition of Zamindari and after him Sukhnandan and Ujagar Singh became the joint Sir-holders, the share of the respective branch being 1/2 each in the property. Sukhnandan died in the year 1941 leaving him surviving his widow Smt. Sukhrani, a son Prahlad and three daughters Shyama Bai, Ram Pyari and Sia Pyari. Prahlad Singh died on 6th June, 1952, that is some 24 days before the abolition of Zamindari. Smt. Ram Dhakeli the first defendant-appellant is his widow. Yadunath Singh, the 8th defendant who is the second appellant, is the husband of Shyama Bai, one of the three daughters of Sukhnandan and Smt. Sukhrani. According to the plaintiffs case, on the death of Sukhnandan in the year 1941, she along with her son Prahlad became the joint Sir-holders of the land along with the members of Ujagar Singh's branch. However, as is not unusual only the name of Prahlad Singh, the son was entered in the revenue papers. On the death of Prahlad Singh, although the plaintiff Smt. Sukhrani continued to have a 1/2 share in the 1/2 share of Sukhnandan, only the name of Smt. Ram Dhakeli, widow of Prahlad Singh was entered in the revenue papers, but her i. e. Smt. Sukhrani's right not having been questioned by any one she did not know of it and the things continued like that until Yadunath Singh, the plaintiff's son-in-law brought Smt. Ram Dhakeli under his influence and obtained a sale-deed from her on 11th July, 1966 for the entire 1/2 share of Sukhnandan's branch in the land in suit and also obtained, by fraud, mis-representation and undue influence, a deed of surrender from the plaintiff Smt. Sukhrani on 23rd July, 1966 in respect of her share, in the land. The trial court accepted the plaintiffs case and decreed the suit cancelling the deed of surrender dated 23rd July, 1966 in its entirety and declaring that the sale-deed dated 11th June, 1966 was valid only in respect of 1/4th share in the whole of the property in suit and was invalid in respect of the rest. The lower appellate court cofirmed that decree but also passed a decree for payment of Rs.500/- as special costs against Smt. Ram Dhakeli and Yadunath Singh who were the appellants before it on the ground that it had been falsely and fraudulently represented before it that Smt. Sukhrani had died during the pendency of the appeal before it when in fact she had not.

(2.) THE four questions on which notice of the second appeal was issued by this Court after hearing under Order 41 rule 11 C.P.C. are as follows :-

(3.) THE first two questions raised are, therefore, answered by saying that the provisions of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937, applied to succession of agricultural land in so far as it was not governed by the provisions of the U. P. Tenancy Act 1939, by virtue of the U.P. Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Land) Act, 1942 (U. P. Act No. XI of 1942) and that Smt. Sukhrani did inherit on the death of her husband Sukhnandan the same interest which he had in the land in suit as a sir-holder thereof, under the provisions of Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937 as amended by Act No. XI of 1938.