LALA ATMA RAM Vs. LALA BENI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad in exercise of its powers of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises questions as to the High Court's interpretation of the section, and as to the claim of a next reversioner to carry on at his own expense a suit which had been filed by the Collector under the local Court of Wards Act as representing two widows for possession of the suit properties which were alleged to form part of the estate of their deceased husband, in consequence of the Collector having applied to withdraw the suit. The suit had been instituted by the Collector of Saharanpur under Section 55 of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act on behalf of Jaimala Kuer and Chando Kuer, who were the surviving widows of Janeshwar Das and are hereinafter referred to as the widows, to recover certain properties in possession of three of the defendants which were alleged to be part of the estate of their deceased husband.

(2.) THE case made in the plaint was that the plaint properties had belonged to Dip Chand who died in 1907 and that on the death of his widow, Dhanni Kuer, who died on January 20, 1920, Janeshwar, the husband of the widows, and his brother Badri Das, who were Dip Chand's nearest reversioners, became entitled to succeed to the suit properties. Dip Chand had been adopted into their family, and it was alleged that his natural father Mukand Lal, who was his guardian had taken advantage of his minority and the minority of his widow, to put his other sons Atma Ram and Abhai Nardan, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in possession of the suit properties. THE suit was brought on behalf of the widows of Janeshwar one of the reversioners, safeguarding the rights; of Phalwanti Kuer, the widow of Badri Das, the other reversioner, who was impleaded as defendant. No.3.

(3.) THE widows then applied to the High Court to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Judge under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Beni Prasad, whom they impleaded as respondent No.6, was afterwards transposed as an applicant for revision along with the widows. It was alleged in the application that in refusing to make the applicants parties to the suit and to substitute them as plaintiffs, the Subordinate Judge had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law (cl. (b)), and had acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction (cl. (c) ).