SITAJI Vs. BIJENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendants first and second parties from a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga. The plaintiffs brought the suit claiming that they were the nearest reversioners of one Nan-bat Lal Jha, who died in 1879, leaving two widows, Mt. Nanuwati and Mt. Chemawati and his mother Mt. Sahajwati Ojhain. The following pedigree will elucidate the 'relationship of the parties : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_356_AIR(PAT)_1951Html1.htm</FRM> After death of Naubat Lal both the widows obtained possession of the estate but Mt. Sahajwati was granted only maintenance. Sahajwati died in 1909; and Nanuwati in 1911 when the whole estate devolved on Mt. Chemawati. On 5-11-1915 Mt. Chemawati dedicated all the properties to certain deities by a registered deed of Samarpannama. She constituted herself as shebait for her life time but she provided that after her death Mahant Ramsarup Das would succeed as shebait. Mahant Ramsarup Das, however, died in the life time of Mt. Chemawati. In 1931 she, therefore, executed a deed of shebaitnama appointing Mahant Gopal Das as shebait of the said deities. In 1933 the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants for a declaration that the deed of endowment executed by Mt. Chemawati was void and not binding upon their reversioners. In that suit the defendants contended that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners of Naubat Lal Jha. But the plaintiffs obtained a decree. On appeal the High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by time; but the other issues raised were expressly left open. After Mt. Chemawati died on 5-8-40, the plaintiffs brought the present suit. They sought a declaration that the deed of endowment and shebaitnama executed by Mt. Chemawati were void and fraudulent and they were entitled to possession of the properties on the death of Mt. Chemawati. It is necessary to state that plaintiffs second party have conveyed 10 annas share of the properties to plaintiffs first party who in consideration thereof have agreed to meet the costs of litigation.

(2.) Defendants 1st party contested the suit on the ground that plaintiffs 2nd party were not the nearest agnates of Naubat Lal Jha. As regards the disputed properties the defendants 1st party claimed that Naubt Lal was not the owner thereof; that the properties had from long before appertained to the deities and Naubat Lal Jha had acted merely as a shebait. In the alternative, defendants 1st party claimed that at any rate the properties mentioned in Schedule 3, of the deed of endorsement were the stridhan of Mt. Chemawati and she could make a valid endowment in favour of the deities.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversioners of Naubat Lal Jha, that the properties in dispute belonged to Naubat Lal Jha and not to the Thakurbari. As regards Schedule 3 of the deed of endowment the Subordinate Judge held that there was no evidence to show that these properties constituted the stridhan of Mt. Chemawati and she had power to alienate. Upon these findings the Subordinate Judge pronounced a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.