BALDEO SINGH Vs. UDAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to certain property which belonged to Narpat Singh, who died childless in April 1912. He had six nephews alive at the time of his death. Out of them three, namely, Raghubar Singh, Tura Singh, and Rewat Singh, were the sons of his brother, Ganpat Singh; one, Baldeo Singh was the son of his brother, Dalip Singh; and the remaining two, Gajram Singh and Genda Singh, were the sons of his brother, Roshan Singh. Ganpat Singh, Dalip Singh and Roshan Singh had died in the lifetime of Narpat Singh and had been living separately from him; so were their sons. On the death of Narpat Singh an application for mutation of names was presented by Raghubar Singh, Tura Singh and Gajram Singh on behalf of themselves and their minor brothers Rewat Singh and Genda Singh, for the entry of the names of all the nephews in respest of the estate left by the deceased in equal shares. An objection wan filed by Baldeo Singh, claiming a half share in the said property on the ground that Ganpat Singh had been adopted in another family and that, according to the custom prevailing in the tribe to which the parties belonged, the nephews of a deceased co-sharer were entitled to inherit his property per stirpes, A settlement was eventually arrived at whereby a one third share was allotted to the sons of Ganpat Singh, now represented by the plaintiffs, a one third share to Baldeo Singh, and y, one-third share to the sons of Roshan Singh. In pursuance thereof, an application was filed in the mutation proceeding on the 7th of August 1912 stating that the parties had arrived at a settlement amongst themselves fixing the shares which each was to get in the property of the deceased, and asking that the mutation of names might be effected in accordance therewith. The petition contained a detail of the landed property left by Narpat Singh, with a specification of the share which each party was to hold. Subsequently, they divided the house property also and undertook to pay the debts due by Narpat Singh in the same proportion. Certain agreements were executed and registered by the parties to evidence the latter transactions.

(2.) The allegation of the plaintiffs, who are the descendants of Ganpat Singh, is that the consent of the sons of Ganpat Singh had been obtained at the time of the settlement by fraud, that one of the sons was a minor at the time, and that the other sons were of immature understanding. They claimed that they were entitled to a half share in the property left by Narpat Singh and sued for the recovery of such portion as the defendants held in excess of their half share with mesne profits. The trial Court found against them and dismissed their claim. The lower Appellate Court allowed their appeal and remanded the suit to that Court for a decision on the merits.

(3.) The trial Court found that no deception had been practiced by the defendants and that the settlement made was binding on the parties. The lower Appellate Court did not determine whether any fraud or deception had been practiced. It treated the petition of compromise, filed in the mutation proceeding, as inadmissible for want of registration and from the observation made by it that the parties had apparently acquiesced in the arrangement for some years and that the representatives of each of the brothers of Narpat Singh had discharged one-third of his debts, it might be inferred that it was inclined to hold that some such arrangement had taken place but no exploit finding was recorded by it.