MUSAMMAT BHAGWATI Vs. MUSAMMAT RAM KALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff and the defendant in this appeal are the widows of two brothers, the appellant of Sagar Mal and the respondent of Kirpa Ram. THE brothers were the sons of Janki Kuar, who died in 1918, and the title under which the property was held by the brothers is in dispute. Kirpa Ram died on March 10, 1924, leaving the respondent as his widow. Sagar Mal died on March 18, 1924, leaving the appellant as his widow. If the property which prior to their death was admittedly enjoyed fay both the brothers was held as joint family property, the appellant as widow of the last survivor would be entitled to the estate. If, on the other hand, as was claimed by the respondent, the property was held by the brothers as tenants-in-common, it would pass to the two widows in equal shares.

(2.) THE appellant asserted that the property was joint family property and by Hindu law the whole passed to her. THE respondent on her part maintained that the property was held by the brothers as tenants-in-caromon and that half devolved upon her. She further alleged that, even if this were not so, by a family arrangement made after the death of the two brothers it was agreed that the parties should enter into possession of the shares of their respective husbands. In support of these allegations she relied upon the facts which were admitted that the property was entered in the revenue records in the joint names of the appellant and respondent, and that, though the appellant was recorded as lambardar of the property in the town of Bulandshahr, including the property in dispute, the respondent was recorded as lambardar of other portions of the property. Whatever may have been the arrangement between the parties, they appear to have quarrelled before October, 1925, and by that date a dispute as to their rights in the property had already arisen and extended to their servants to such an extent that criminal proceedings were taken by one of the employees of the respondent against certain employees of the appellant, proceedings which ended in the conviction of the appellant's servants on February 5, 1926.

(3.) THE appellant thereupon appealed to the Subordinate Judge who on May 31, 1927, gave judgment awarding half the rent to the appellant and half to the respondent. From this decision the appellant appealed to the High Court. Just before the decision of the Subordinate Judge, namely, on April 6, 1927, some proceedings appear to have taken place in the acquisition matter towards determining the amount payable as compensation. THE respondent claimed that an award had been made on that date, but this was denied by the appellant. It is undoubted, however, that on September 29, 1927, the Collector made a formal award as to the value of the property and the apportionment of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. His award has not been printed in the record. THEre has been printed, however, the terms of an award dated November 1, 1927, which is said by the respondent to be an attempt of the Collector to make a fresh award after he was junctus officio, and by the appellant to be merely a repetition of the earlier award and explanatory of the details contained therein. Under either award the parties each received in compensation one-half of the value of the land in dispute, the Collector apparently taking the view that they were entitled to the property in equal shares. Notices of each of the awards appear to have been sent to each of the parties.