LADKABAI Vs. NAVIVAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this suit the plaintiff, Ladkabai, widow of the deceased, Lalji Valji, sues Navivahu, widow of the deceased Haridas Dharamsey, to recover from her (1) the entire estate of the said deceased Haridas Dharamsey; (2) specific sums of money; (3) ornaments.

(2.) The plaintiff s allegation put shortly is that her husband Lalji survived the deceased Haridas Dharamsey, and upon certain grounds, which I shall have to give more in detail was in law his sole heir; that she, therefore, the plaintiff Ladkabai, on the death of her husband, Lalji, is entitled to a widow s estate in the whole property. Further, she contends that by a writing of the 31st of October 1905. Haridas Dharamsey declared a trust of Rs. 20,000 in favour of herself and her husband, to which in any event she is now entitled. As to the specific sum of Rs. 5000 and the ornaments, the former is admitted; and about the latter I need say nothing in this judgment. Should it be necessary to go into that point, it would be more properly inquired into by the Commissioner than on the main part of this trial.

(3.) In order to understand the position occupied by the plaintiff and the defendant for the purposes of this litigation, it is necessary to say that there were five brothers Valji, Meghji Canji, Haridas and Narsey, sons of one Dharamsey Nandji It is common ground that these brothers separated. All the brothers are now dead except Narsey. Lalji was at the time of his marriage the sole surviving son of Valji. He married the plaintiff, then a minor, in the year 1906. As the plaint is framed, it will be seen that the plaintiff has contended that her husband s father Valji reunited with Haridas and that Haridas had adopted her husband Lalji. Treating these as mere questions of fact, it is sufficient to say that no evidence worth considering has been laid before the Court to substantiate either of them and that the plaintiff, long before the trial had concluded, abandoned both the contentions.