BASANT KAUR Vs. TEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge reversing, on appeal, the decision of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs' suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS 2 and 3 are the widows of Arjan Singh one of the donors; plaintiff 4 is the widow of one of the second donor Jalmed Singh (Arjan Singh and Jalmed Singh are real brothers) and plaintiff 1 is the son of plaintiff 2. The last maleholders of the property in dispute were Arjan Singh and Jalmed Singh. They gifted the suit land to their mother, Mst. Bholi. The gift was oral and was made in the year 1919 and is evidenced by Exhibit P 3. Mst Bholi sold this land to her daughter Tej Kaur for Rs. 4,000/- and this has led to the present suit for a declaration that the sale is without consideration and legal necessity and would not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE sole question, that required determination in the Courts below, was whether Mst Bholi was an absolute owner of the property acquired by her by gift from her sons? The trial Court held that Mst. Bholi held only a life-interest and therefore, could not sell the property. The sale being before the Hindu Succession Act, she naturally could not become the absolute owner thereof under that Act. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed the decision of the trial Court on appeal on the ground that the gift made by the sons to the mother was an out and out gift and the mother held the property as an absolute owner. It is not disputed, and indeed it could not be that if the mother was the absolute owner of the property she could dispose it of in any manner she liked. It is against this decision of the lower appellate Court that the present second appeal has been preferred.