BIRBHADRA PRASAD Vs. SHAM DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in the suits out of which these five appeals arise are as follows:

(2.) Bal Kishan Khattri died at the end of the last century leaving a widow Sham Dei and a daughter Amru. The daughter has since died childless. On the 3 of April, 1916, Sham Dei executed a deed, by which she dedicated a house in Benares, the property of her deceased husband, as a dharamsala. Bir Bhadra instituted a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Kishan on the death of Sham Dei as reversionary heir under the Mitakshara law, and for a declaration that the deed of dedication is not binding upon him. Ranjit Singh and Ranbir Singh institued another suit for a declaration that they are entitled to succeed to the estate of Bal Kishan on the death of Sham Dei, and for a declaration that the deed of dedication is not binding upon them, Both suits were decided by Mr. S.N. Banerji, Subordinate Judge. He found that Sham Dei was not authorized to alienate the house in Benares to the prejudice of the reversionary heirs, and that Ranjit Singh and Ranbir Singh were the reversionary heirs of Bal Kishan.

(3.) Appeals were filed in the court of the District Judge, Benares. The District Judge found that Sham Dei was not authorized to alienate the house in Benares to the prejudice of the reversionary heirs. He arrived at a conclusion different to that of the Subordinate Judge as to who was the reversionary heir. He found that Bir Bhadra was the reversionary heir.