JHANDHU Vs. TARIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sukhram was an owner of property and died. He left behind him a lady named Musammat Imirti, who was supposed to be his legal widow, having been married in the Karao form of marriage. If she was his legal widow she was entitled to the life enjoyment of the property which Sukhram left

(2.) In 1904 four persons called Kehri, Kallu, Nihal, and Mir Singh raised an action against this lady alleging that they were the representatives of Sukhram. They further alleged that she was not a legal widow at all, and that accordingly they were entitled to possession of Sukhram s property. They were cast in that action because they failed to produce a proper pedigree which showed that they were in the degree of relationship which would entitle them to succeed even if their allegations against the lady were true.

(3.) The present plaintiff is a person of the name of Jhandu who, admittedly, in the pedigree is one degree further off from Sukhram than Mir Singh, who is still alive. He raised the present action on precisely the same averments as Mir Singh and the others raised their action in 1904, that is to say, he averred that Musammat Imirti was not a real widow, but was, as he described it, a Bhatni widow with whom Sukhram had illicit connection and who lived with him as a kept woman. He therefore asked for possession of the property. It seems that after 1904, but before the institution of the present suit, Musammat Imirti made a conveyance of part of the lands to certain third parties. The Subordinate Judge gave judgment in the plaintiff s favour, disregarding the fact that in no supposition could the plaintiff ever be entitled to immediate possession for which he asked, owing to the fact that Mir Sing was still alive and was a degree nearer than the plaintiff.