BINDBASHNI SINGH Vs. SHEORATI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by Bindbasni Singh, defendant No. 1, and Mosstt.. Phulwati Kuer, defendant No. 2. and arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration that the deed of sift executed by the latter in favour of the former on the 15th December, 1958, is not binding on the plaintiffs.

(2.) The main parties belong to the three branches of the family, the common ancestor of which was one Dund Singh. All the three branches were joint long before 1917. Subsequently there was separation, but the three sub-branches of one of the branches, namely, of Inder Singh, whose son was Sajiwan Singh, remained joint. Sajiwan had three sons, Chintaman Singh, Jagdeo Singh and Nanku Singh. Chintaman died leaving a widow Mostt. Dhaneshwar Kuer. Nanku died leaving a widow Mostt. Phulwati Kuer (appellant No. 2) Jagdeo Singh was the only surviving male member in that branch. He died issueless in the year 1918 and leaving no widow. Upon his death a registered deed of maintenance was executed on the 15th September. 1918, by the members of the other two branches in favour of two widows, Mosstt. Dhaneshwar Kuer and Mostt. Phulwati Kuer, giving in possession the properties of Jagdeo Singh in lieu of their right of maintenance for the period of their life, but the maintenance deed was not to remain operative after their death. Mostt. Dhaneshwar Kuer died long ago and her half share in the property reverted to the members of the other two branches. Mostt. Phulwati Kuer, however, remained in possession of her half share which was given to her in lieu of maintenance. Thereafter on the H5th December. 1958, she executed a deed of gift in favour of appellant No. 1, which Is being challenged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is Mosstt. Sheorati Kuer, widow of Dukhdevan Singh belonging to one of the branches of Dund Singh. Bindbasni Singh, appellant No. 1, is the son of Khublal Singh, belonging to the other branch of Dund Singh. Plaintiff No. 2 claims to be a donee from plaintiff No. 1.

(3.) The main defence in the suit was that on the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, defendant No. 2 had become absolute owner of the property. namely, half the property given in maintenance to her and the other widow.