NIRMAN BAHADUR Vs. FATEH BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal. The following pedigree will explain the history of the case and the relationship among themselves, of the actors in this history: (For pedigree see p. 964)

(2.) THE ancestor, Naurang Singh, owned both ancestral and self -acquired property held jointly by himself and his five sons. In the year 1893, on 7th January, he executed a document entitled 'Deed of partition' which will be found at p 57 of the paper book. One of the important points that we have to decide in this appeal will be the effect of this document on the status of the family. One of the immediate results of the deed was that Jai Karan Singh the eldest son, began to live separately. Naurang Singh died on 5th May 1895. Within a few months of his death (according to one party six months and according to the other, some 15 months) Dirgbijai Singh died. Mt. Manraj Kunwari's name was recorded in the place of her husband in the khewat. In 1914, Fateh Bahadur Singh and Raghuraj Singh alias Banke Singh, instituted a suit against Manraj Kunwari, to obtain a declaration that she was a widow of a joint Hindu family and had no right to the property over which her name had been recorded in the khewat. In the alternative, they claimed possession over two -thirds of the property, on the ground that the remaining one -third belonged to the third brother Balkaran Singh who was made a proforma defendant, see p. 107 of the printed record.

(3.) THE principal defendants contend that the only person who separated from the family was Jaikaran Singh and that as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, the rest of the family remained united and Dirgbijai Singh died as a member of the joint Hindu family, that Mt. Manraj Kunwari's name was recorded in the khewat for the sake of her consolation, but she was evilly influenced by certain adversaries of the defendants and they instigated her to institute suits for