KALI CHARAN Vs. MUSAMMAT PEARE ALIAS PEARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two suits which have given rise to these two connected appeals were instituted by Chokhe Lal for cancellation of two deeds of gift dated 5 May 1920 executed in favour of the defendant Brijbasi Lal by Musammat Ram Piyari and Musammat Ram Ralli respectively. Chokhe Lal died during the litigation and was succeeded by his three sons, the present appellants. A pedigree showing the relationship of the parties is given in the judgments of the Courts below. Musammats Ram Piyari and Ram Lalli were the widows of two brothers who formed a joint family with a third brother Bhagwan Sahai. The family was joint. The husbands of the two Musammats died in their father's lifetime. Bhagwan Sahai alone survived his father and became in law the sole owner of the joint family property. The name of the father was Ramdin. On Ramdin's death the names of the two Musammats were entered in the revenue papers as proprietors along with Bhagwan Sahai. The plaintiff's case was that their names were recorded merely for their consolation as they were entitled to maintenance, and that they were never in possession. The Subordinate Judge found this to be the case but the District Judge held that they were in actual proprietary and adverse possession. The date of Ramdin's death has not been found, but Bhagwan Sahai died sixteen or seventeen years before the suit. After his death the widows continued to be entered as proprietors in respect of one-third of the property each. Bhagwan Sahai was succeeded by his son and on the death of the latter without issue in 1905 his rights were inherited by his mother, Musammat Mahadei, the widow of Bhagwan Sahai. Musammat Mahadei is still alive and was made a party to the suit as defendant. She has conveyed all her rights to Chokhe Lal.

(2.) The seven pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal really boil down to two: 1. That the Court below has erred in law in holding the possession of the Musammats to have been adverse. 2. That an admission made by the widows on 30 June 1907 has been wrongly excluded from evidence.

(3.) The second plea is merely subsidiary to the former. The wrong exclusion of evidence is only material in so far as it can be said to have affected the decision on the main issue. To these two pleas the appellants Counsel has in argument added a third based on the recent decision of the Privy Council in Lajwanti V/s. Safa Chand 80 Ind. Cas. 788 : 22 A.L.J. 304 : (1924) A.I.R. (P.C.) 121 : 51 L. 192 : (1924) M.W.N. 442 : 20. L.W. 10 : 2 P.L.R. 245 : 28 C.W.N. 960 : 26 Bom.L.R. 1117 (P.C.) to the effect that even if the widows possession was adverse, they acquired by adverse possession only a widow's estate in the property and, therefore, the deeds of gift are only valid for their respective lifetimes. Both widows were made parties to the suits though Musammat Ram Piyari is now dead and her heirs have been substituted in her place.