NAURATI Vs. TULLA ALIAS NAURANG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by plaintiffs, daughter and another daughter's sons - is raising a question whether a compromise entered into by the widow of the last male holder with the collaterals could bind the plaintiffs in respect of their rights of succession after the widow's estate terminated.

(2.) The dispute between the parties arose in the following circumstances. Karora Singh, resident of village Kajheri, tehsil Kharar, the original owner of the property in suit, died in July, 1928. After his death, mutation was effected in favour of the near reversioners on the ground that Mst. Manglan, widow of the deceased, was held not to be his wedded wife. In the year 1929 Mst. Manglan brought a suit challenging the mutation on the ground that she was properly married wife of the deceased and thus entitled to the widow's estate in preference to the reversioners. In the said suit on 9th April, 1929, a compromise was arrived at between the widow and the reversioners. According to the terms of the said compromise Mst. Manglan was accepted as the wife of the deceased and consequently was allowed to take the usual widow's estate. It was, however, stipulated that after her death the reversioners were to succeed absolutely. In view of the said compromise, the widow was given possession of the suit property. On 23rd December, 1946, Mst. Manglan mortgaged part of the land in favour of defendant No. 3, a stranger, for Rs. 2,500/-. On a suit by the reversioners challenging this mortgage, consideration to the extent of Rs. 400/- was only found to have been binding, for the rest, the mortgage was held to be ineffective. Manglan died in 1950.

(3.) After her death, on 19th October, 1951, present suit for possession by daughter, Mst. Naurati and sons from another daughter was occasioned. The claim in the suit was that the daughter and the daughter's sons were preferential heirs as compared to the reversioners. The trial Court on 22nd May, 1952, decreed the suit while finding that the property was non-ancestral, daughters were legitimate children of the deceased Karora Singh the last male holder, daughter and, daughter's sons were preferential heirs and that the compromise Exhibit D.1 dated the 9th April, 1929, between the widow and the reversioners was not binding on the present plaintiffs. The decree was made operative subject to the payment of Rs. 400/- already found as payable in respect of mortgage dated 23rd December, 1946. The reversioners appealed. Learned Senior Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and concluded that the compromise Exhibit D.1 between the widow and the reversioners was effective in divesting the interests of daughter and daughter's sons.