IFTIKHAR WALI KHAN Vs. SIKANDAR BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Bareilly in a suit brooght by the plaintiff-respondent, Mb. Nawnb Sikandar Begam, for a declaration that a deed of gift, dated 13 April 1928, purporting to have been exeouted by her in favour of her minor grandson, ZulBqar Wali Khan, defendant 2, and a deed of mortgage, dated 19bh February 1929, executed by her son, Malik Ittikhar. Wall Khan, defendant 1, as guardian of defendant 2, in favour of Lala Earn Oharan Lai, defendant 3, are null and void against her. She has also sued for mesne profits, which were neither valued in the plaint, nor any court-fee was paid thereon. The suit was decreed as against defendants 1 and 2, except as regards mesne profits, and the deed of gift was annulled. As regards the mortgage deed in favour of defendant 3, the suit was dismissed. The present appeal has been preferred by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff-respondent has not questioned the decree so far as it dismisses her claim in respect of the mortgage deed in favour of defendant 3, as to which the decree has become final.

(2.) The plaintiff was, at the date of the suit, about 60 years of age. She was born in a wealthy family of Bareilly. Her brother, Nawab Mohammad Hasan Khan alias Nabbu Saheb, is alive. She was married to Nawab Saadad Wali Khan of Bateilly, whose family also owned considerable property. The plaintiff inherited some property from her parents, and at the date of gift owned the property to which the deed of gift in question relates. In 1903 there was a litigation between her on one side and her husband and the latber's father on the other. The precise nature of this litigation does not appear from the record of this case ; but it seems to have greatly embittered her relations with her husband's family. It was possibly the result of previously embittered relations between them. Her husband died many years ago, leaving two sons and two daughters by her. They were grown up persons when the deed of gift is said to have been executed by her. One of her" daughters was married to a gentleman named Mushtak Ali Khan of Moradabad. The other daughter was married to one Abdul Hamid, the son of a Deputy Collector. According to her own allegations, she was not on good terms with the elder of her two sons. According to the evidence in the case, relations between her and her two daughters were also not cordial. Her daughter, Husan Ara Begam, who was married to Mustaq Ali Khan, had a decree for Rs. 13,000 outstanding against her at the date of the gift. The other daughter seldom came to her house. She herself lived in a rented house. The rest of the family lived in her husband's house. Iftikhar Wali Khan, the younger of the two sons, was on good terms with her. The lady looked after the management of her own property through servants. Her supervision was of an extraordinary character, considering her position as a "pardanashin" lady. Iftikhar Wali Khan's wife died, leaving, among other children, an infant son, defendant 2, who was ten months old at the time of his mother's death, which took place 6 or 7 years be-fore the date of the gift. According to the recitals contained in the deed of gift and the case of the defendants, defendant 2 was brought up by the plaintiff, who had for that reason great affection for him.

(3.) On 13 April 1928, the plaintiff executed the deed of gift in question, which was registered at her own house. Mutation of names was effected in favour of the donee, whose guardian, defendant 1, was in possession of the gifted property for nearly a year. Husan Ara Begam, her daughter, had village Nakti Narainpur, part of the gifted property, sold in execution of her decree. Defendant 1, acting as the guardian of defendant 2, mortgaged with possession three of the villages, covered by the deed of gift, to defendant 3, and raised Rs. 21,200 and deposited the same towards the satisfaction of Husan Ara Begam's decree and had the sale in respect of village Nakti Narainpur set aside. This transaction was completed with the permission of the District Judge and was given effect to by placing defendant 3 in possession of the mortgaged property. In March of the following year (1929), the plaintiff, on her own showing, took forcible possession of the property and instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal on 10 April 1929.