MANNU LAL Vs. LACHHAMAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this appeal is: what was the intention of Mt. Budhia, towards Phundu as regards her property, as expressed by her in her will?

(2.) It appears that on the death of Mt. Budhia, Phundu took possession of her property which consisted of two houses and some moveables and mortgaged one of these to plaintiff 2. Phundu died without any heir. Defendant 1 obtained letters of administration to the estate of Mt. Budhia and by the permission of the District Judge, who granted the Letters of Administration sold the property, mortgaged by Phundu to defendant 2. Plaintiff 1 is a transferee from plaintiff 2 and has joined with the original mortgagee in the suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that Phundu got nothing under the will but the lower appellate Court decreed the suit holding that Phundu was the legatee under the will and was entitled to make the mortgage. It is common ground that defendant 1 is not an heir to Mt. Budhia. It is also the case that no one has so far claimed any interest in Budhia's property as her heir-at-law.

(3.) We have been furnished with a translation of the will and we have also examined the original will which is in Drdu. Briefly what Budhia said was as follows: Budhia's mother-in-law had brought up one Gauri. Gauri was married and had a son Phundu. Gauri became immoral of character and was turned out of the house by Mt. Gyani. Phundu's mother died leaving Phundu a child of one year. Budhia brought up this child Phundu who was eleven years of age at the date of the execution of the will.