BISHWANATH TIWARI Vs. BACHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for a declaration that a sale-deed dated 27th August 1936, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 was without consideration, not justified by legal necessity and therefore, not binding on the plaintiffs. I shall presently refer to the findings of the Courts below on the facts in issue between the parties, but it would be convenient to state at the very beginning that the main question involved in the appeal is one of limitation, the only ground on which the Courts below have dismissed the action. There is also a cross-objection by respondent 3, who was defendant 3 in action, which raises the question of the interpretation of the terms of a will executed by one Ramnihora Tiwari on 22nd June 1923, Therefore, the two questions for decision in this appeal are, (1) whether the suit of the plaintiffs, appellants was barred by time, and (2) what right two widows, defendants 1 and 2 in the action, got under the said will.

(2.) The facts are the following. Ramnihora Tiwari was admittedly the last male owner of the property in question. He executed a will dated 22nd June 1929, in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 1 was his daughter and defendant 2 was the widow of his nephew Bam Nandan Tiwari. Both these ladies were widows at the time when the will was executed, and were apparently dependent on Ramnihora for maintenance. Ramnihora died in 1930, and the widows came in possession on taking probate of the will. The appellants alleged that they were the next reversioners to the estate of Ramnihora. They said that the two widows had a life estate under the terms of the will. The widows had been executing several documents to fritter away the estate without any valid necessity, and on 27th August 1996, they executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant 3 in respect of 5.82 acres of laud. This sale-deed the appellants challenged as being without consideration and not justified by legal necessity. The defence raised several pleas--challenging the claim of the appellants to the reversionary right, also challenging the appellants' interpretation of the terms of the will, etc. One of the pleas raised was that the suit was barred by limitation having been brought in 1944, about six years after the execution of the sale-deed.

(3.) The Courts below concurrently found that (a) the appellants are the next reversioner to the estate of Ramnihora; (b) under the will the two widows got nothing more than a life estate ; and (c) the sale-deed in question was without consideration and not justified by legal necessity. These three findings were in favour of the appellants, but on the question of limitation the Courts below held that the action was barred by time. Hence the second appeal by the appellants. As already stated, respondent 3 the purchaser under the sale-deed of 27th August 1936, has preferred a cross-objection challenging the finding of the Courts below that under the will the widows got a life estate only. The contention of respondent 3 is that the ladies got an absolute estate in the property in question under the terms of the will.