SAJJANPAL SINGH Vs. MTHARNARAINI KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for possession which was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Etah. The property in suit is a, share of 4 biswas in the village of Esauli. This property originally belonged to one Jiwa Ram who died on 27 August 1890. It is now admitted that it was ancestral property. Jiwa Ram also had other property which he had separately acquired. His widow, Mt. Hans Kunvvar, succeeded to the whole of his property and remained in possession up to her death on 12 February 1928. The plain tiff-respondent, Mt. Har Naraini Kunwar, is the sole surviving daughter of Jiwa Ram. She got possession of the separately acquired property on the death of her mother, Mt. Hans Kunwar, but she failed to induce the Revenue Court to enter her name in the register as being in possession of the property in Esauli. She therefore instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal and obtained a decree for possession, from the lower Court.

(2.) In order properly to understand the question in issue between the parties it is necessary to set forth their relationship with the original owner, Jiwa Ram. This Jiwa Ram was the son of Lachhman Singh who had five brothers. One of these brothers, Chet Ram, died without leaving male issue. The other brothers were Lekhraj Singh, Dulab Singh, Muktabil Singh and Glrdhari Singh. The defendants are Sajjanpal Singh, Mahendarpal Singh, Jogendarpal Singh and Gajendarpal Singh are the great-grandsons and great great-grandsons of Muktabil Singh. The defendants, Lal Singh and Basdeo Singh are the grandsons of Girdhari Singh. The defendants, Narain Singh, Lokhpal Singh, Balwant Singh, Chhaitarpal Singh are the great-grandsons of Gulab Singh. The defendant, Shankar Singh, is the grandson of Lekhraj Singh and defendant, Mt. Tika Kunwar is the widow of Sundar Singh, the son of Lekhraj Singh. The plaintiff Mt. Har Naraini Kunwar is, as we have already said, the sole surviving daughter of Jiwa Ram by his wife Mt. Hans Kunwar. Some of the defendants are the appellants before us and others have been impleaded as respondents. The plaintiff-respondent based her claim on two grounds, namely, as the daughter of Jiwa Ram under the Hindu law and as the legatee under a will which was executed by Jiwa Ram on 20 August 1890, and registered on the 23 August of that year.

(3.) After the death of Jiwa Ram there was a dispute about succession to his property. The mother of the defendant Narain Singh set up the plea that her son had been adopted by Jiwa Ram and in support of her contention she relied upon a will or declaration said to have been executed by Jiwa Ram on 24 August 1890. It appears that one branch of collaterals, that is the branch of Lekhraj Singh, set up a claim that Jiwa Ram had died as a member of a joint Hindu family and that they were entitled to succeed to his property by way of survivorship. There is upon the record a report made by the Tahsildar of Jalesar on 7 January 1891, in connexion with the mutation of the register. In that report he mentioned that there was a claim that Narain Singh had been adopted by Jiwa Ram and also said that Sundar Singh and others had claimed that the property was ancestral, that they were heirs and that Mt. Hans Kunwar had only a right to maintenance. From this we infer that the latter claim was to the effect that Jiwa Ram and the claimants had been members of a joint Hindu family up to the time of Jiwa Ram's death. It is now said that there was also a custom in the family that collaterals should succeed to ancestral property in preference to daughters and daughter's sons, but it is not clear whether that claim was also made after Jiwa Ram's death in the year 1890.