LACHHMAN Vs. PHOOLKUNWER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the suit properties on the footing that they originally belonged to her father one Dayaram. According to the plaintiff, some time after the death of Dayaram in 1948 his widow Mst. Sukhia sold 8.97 acres of occupancy land to Lachhman by a registered sale deed dated 6th February 1950 for a consideration of Rs. 800; that there was no legal necessity at all for this sale; that on the same day Mst. Sukhia gifted away 9.41 acres of occupancy land to Mst. Ramhulla; and that after the death of Mst. Sukhia in 1950 Mst. Ramhulla took possession of the remaining property left behind by Mst. Sukhia. The appellant Mst. Ramhulla is a neice of the plaintiff being her sister Jodhkunwar's daughter. The plaintiff claimed moveable and immoveable property of Dayaram as the next reversioner after the death of his widow Sukhia.

(2.) THE plea of the defendants was that after the death of Dayaram the condition of agricultural property deteriorated and its income fell down; that Sukhia, therefore, needed money to maintain herself and for performing marriage of the appellant Mst. Ramhulla and for purchasing a pair of bullocks, and that for this purpose she had to incur a debt, and sale in favour of the appellant Lachhman was effected in order to pay off this debt and was thus for legal necessity. It was further averred by the defendants that Dayaram desired that his property should go to his second daughter Jodhkunwar and that she should reside with him; that, therefore, he made so offer to the plaintiff that the should forego her interest in the property on the condition of his purchasing some property for her and her husband; that this offer was accepted by the plaintiff and accordingly she received some property from Dayaram; that having accepted this offer of Dayaram the plaintiff could not now claim any property left by Dayaram; that it was in pursuance of this arrangement made by Dayaram that Sukhia made gift of the lands in question to Mst. Ramhulla with the full consent and approval of the plaintiff; that on the death of Sukhia, disputes again arose between the plaintiff and Mst. Ramhulla and mediators were called to settle the dispute, that ultimately the dispute was amicably settled and the plaintiff agreed to take half of the occupancy land gifted by Sukhia to Mst. Ramhulla and some moveable property in full settlement of her claim on the property of Dayaram; and that according to this settlement the plaintiff could not now lay any claim on the properties in suit.

(3.) ON these findings, the plaintiff's claim for possession of the land sold to the appellant Lachhman and of sir -land in suit was decreed. The plaintiff was also declared to be entitled to retain possession of the occupancy land which was delivered to her under the settlement effected after the death of Mst. Sukhia. The rest of her claim was dismissed. The defendants have now preferred this appeal. The plaintiff has also filed cross -objection for her claim in regard to the entire occupancy land gifted to Mst. Ramhula being decreed.