BHAGWAN SAHAI Vs. DARYAO KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has come up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge:

(2.) The facts of the case have been set out in detail in the referring order, and it is unnecessary therefore to repeat them, except in so far as it is relevant for answering the question posed above.

(3.) Ch. Bhagwan Sahai, the appellant in the aforesaid appeals, brought a suit No. 37 of 1950, against Smt. Daryao Kuer, the first respondent in these appeals, for a declaration that he and his son Ch. Shiv Dan, the second respondent, were the owners of the properties in suit, and for possession in the alternative. According to Ch. Bhagwan Sahai the recorded owner of these properties was his uncle Sri Harnam Singh. Sri Harnam Singh and his adopted son Ram Kishen used to live jointly with Ch. Bhagwan Sahai. Hence after the death of Sri Harnam Singh and his son, Ch. Bhagwan Sahai, and his son, became the owners of the entire joint family property by survivorship though the names of the widows of Sri Harnam Singh and Sri Ram Kishen were got entered in the revenue papers simply for their consolation and they had no right or title to any part of those properties. The plaint contained some other allegation also, but for the purposes of the present reference it is not necessary to mention them. On these, and the unmentioned allegations, Ch. Bhagwan Sahai prayed for the reliefs stated above. Shortly afterwards Ch. Bhagwan Sahai filed another Suit No. 42 of 1950, against Smt. Daryao Kuer and one other person, claiming the price of the crop which stood on some Sir and Khudkasht plots in villages Pirangarh and Kasimabad, on the allegations that Smt. Daryao Kuer had cut and misappropriated the Kharif crop standing on those plots in 1356F without having any right title or interest in the same. Smt. Daryao Kuer contested both the suits. Her defence inter alia, was that there had been a complete partition in the family, as a result of which Sri Harnam Singh and after him, adopted son, Ram Kishen, became the owners of their separated shares. After the death of Ram Kishen the defendant inherited the said property as his widow.