PATTO PADHANUNI Vs. BHIKARI PADHANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by one Bhikari Padhano who claimed to be the reversioner to the estate of one Krishna Padhano. The first defendant, Patto Padhanuni is the widow of the deceased Krishna. The plaintiff's case was that his father and the father of the deceased Krishna were brothers and that Krishna died leaving the first defendant as his only surviving heir. The second defendant was put up as having been adopted to Krishna and a formal deed of adoption, dated 6-8-1947 was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second. The plaintiff impugned this as a collusive document and as such challenges the title of the second defendant to succeed to the estate of the deceased Krishna. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a declaration that the adoption should be declared invalid and that the plaintiff, the next heir, to succeed to the properties left by Krishna.

(2.) The first defendant contested the suit and averred that her deceased husband, Krishna, had executed a registered deed of settlement dated 12-6-1939 under which he settled all his properties on her with full rights. Her further case was that he had also executed a registered will bequeathing all his properties to her. It was further alleged that Krishna died on 3-1-1940 and that even during his lifetime the first defendant enjoyed the properties settled upon her in her own right. She therefore disputed the right of the plaintiff to have a declaration of his reversionary interest to the properties of Krishna as, in fact, no properties had been left by Krishna. She supported the adoption of the second defendant by Krishna besides claiming title to the properties in her own right.

(3.) The genuineness and validity of the deed of settlement relied on by the first defendant, though raised in the written statement, was not put in issue. But the learned Munsif discussed it under issue No. 2 which read as follows: "Whether the suit is maintainable in law." In disposing of this issue, the learned Munsif observes that he was not called upon to decide whether Krishna Padhano left any estate at all, or whether that estate passed out of the hands of the reversioner by virtue of his own act, on the view that the plaintiff was related to Krishna Padhano as his nephew and was his nearest reversioner. He accordingly granted the plaintiff a declaration that the adoption of the second defendant was invalid. Both the defendants appealed against this judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal, however, did not discuss the genuineness of the settlement deed at all nor did he consider whether the plaintiff could maintain the suit for a declaration of his reversionary interest in view of the fact that there was no property left by the last maleholder which can be said to revert.