MOSSOMAT BAIJNATH KUER Vs. MAHESHWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal raises a short point, namely, whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or Sub-section (2) of that section shall apply.

(2.) Short facts, relevant for disposal of this appeal, on the limited contention raised before this Court which are undisputed, are these: Mahadeo and Sidheshwar were two full brothers. The plaintiff is the widow of Mahadeo. One Mossomat Asharfi, impleaded as defendant No. 2 was the widow of Sidheshwar. Sidheshwar died sometime in the year 1922 leaving his widow Asharfi and his daughter, Maheshwari, who was then a baby in the arms. There is controversy between the parties about separation between Mahadeo and Sidheshwar. Defendant No. 2 alleged that Sidheshwar had separated from Mahadeo, severing the joint status, although the properties were not partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiff alleged otherwise, namely, that Sidheshwar died in state of jointness with Mahadeo and the properties of Sidheshwar passed on to Mahadeo by right of survivorship.

(3.) Sidheshwar fell seriously ill before he died. For maintenance of his widow Asharfi and the marriage of his daughter named above, in the year 1922, he executed a Mokarrari Heyati deed. By this deed, six annas and odd proprietary interest in mouza Belchi which included the suit land, the same being the bakasht land, was given to Asharfi.