SHEO LAL SINGH Vs. CHOWDHRY GOOR NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ramdyal Singh died in 1845, leaving a widow Birja Koer, two daughters, Sham Sunder Koer and Moha Sunder Koer, two daughters sons, Ajodhya, the son of Sham Sunder and Seo Charn, the won of Moha Sunder. Moha Sunder had also a daughter, Bhuwani Koer, whose son was Hanuman Sahai, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 9. It is said that Ramdyal Singh made a verbal Will by which he gave his properties to his two grandsons, Ajodhya and Seo Oharan, subject to a life-interest in favour of his widow Birja, giving the major portion to Ajodhya and the disputed properties amongst others to Seo Charan : that Seo Charan died during the life-time of Birja so that on Birja's death in 1851, Ajodhya got possession of the properties given to him and Moha Sander came into possession of the properties given to Seo Charan: that when Moha Sunder died on the 15 June 1894, the properties possessed by her devolved upon the heirs or nearest agnates of Seo Charan from whom Hanuman Sahai purchased them: Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Hanuman Sahai and plaintiff. No. 3 Mohesh Lal is said to be an assignee of a moiety of the properties from them. The suit giving rise to the present appeal (No. 258) was brought by the said three plaintiffs for the recovery of possession of certain properties covered by a moharrari granted by Moha Sunder and Bhawani on the 29 March 1855, on the ground that Moha Sunder could not, as a Hindu mother in possession of her deceased son's estate, make the alienation without legal necessity, that no legal necessity existed and that the other lessor Bhawani had no sort of right whatever, and could not pass any title that would be available against the plaintiffs who are the purchasers from the nearest reversioners of Seo Charan. The suits giving rise to the other appeals were brought for the recovery of possession of certain properties covered by kobalas of different dates executed by Moha Sunder Koer for the same reason. Of these suits, particular mention need be made in respect of suit No. 20 giving rise to Appeal No. 531, which was in respect of a kobala dated 2 October, 1876 in favour of Shekh. Bahadur Ali, father of Moulvi Mohomed Rafti-ud-din. Hanuman joined with his mother and grandmother in executing this kobala and that which is impeached in Appeal No. 298, which was in favour, of the predecessor-in title of the appellant in that case. 3. The following were amongst the pleas urged on behalf of the defendants: 1. That Mohesh Lal is a benamdar of Moulvi Mohamed Raffi-ud-din and he cannot, therefore, maintain the suit.

(2.) That the suits being for setting aside certain alienations, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are not alone competent to maintain the suit and the suit must be dismissed for this reason alone.

(3.) That even if the suit could be maintained by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, it must fail to the extent of the share purchased by Mohesh Lal.