NAGASI UKHEDA GUJJAR Vs. ANANDJI DHARSI GUJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sued for a declaration that he was the owner of the moveable property in suit and for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from recovering the property and for recovery of possession of the property or the price thereof from defendant No. 3 and defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) It appears that one Dharsee Thackersey Gujar died on November 13, 1915, leaving behind him a son, the plaintiff, a widow, Ratanbai or Bayabai, his mother and a daughter. He was possessed of moveable and immoveable properties and had considerable debts. He made a will, Exhibit 77, on November 18, 1915, bequeathing his property and appointing panchas. He directed that his moveable and immoveable property at Cutch Varadia should be enjoyed by his mother during her lifetime, and after her death his wife and son Anandji should enjoy this property, and that after referring to certain other properties, he directed as follows :- If in future Anandji, and my wife do not pull on wall together, twelve annas out of my property should be given to Anandji and four annas out of my property should be given to my wife.

(3.) The question in the present case is whether the property which was divided between Anandji, the son, and the wife by the panchas after the death of Dharsee was absolute property or was a limited estate of a Hindu widow. It appears that the panchas co-opted three other persons in order to wind up the affairs of the deceased Dharsee. They settled with the creditors of Dharsee and paid them a portion of the debts, consolidated the moveable and immoveable property, and divided the property between Anandji and his stop-mother in the proportion of 3 to 1.