MITAR SAIN Vs. DATA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same suit instituted by two persons, Mitter Sen and Gurusaran Das, against one Data Ram. It appears that one Dalip Singh, deceased, a Jain Agarwal, died some years ago and was succeeded by his wife Mt. Manohri. Mt. Manohri, shortly before her death, adopted Data Ram. The adoption took place on 27 October 1918. The plaintiffs are Manohri's brothers. On 12th December 1918 Mt. Manohri executed a document which is described in the document itself as a will and a deed of adoption. By this document she declared that she had taken Data Ram, a near relation of hers, as her adopted son and that on her death he would be the absolute owner of the entire property. She however directed by this document Data Ram to make certain payments. Among these directions one was to the effect that Data Ram was to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the plaintiffs, her brothers, within a period of 15 years. At about the end of the document Mt. Manohri declared that in case Data Ram refused to pay the various sums directed by her to be paid, the money might be realized from her estate, if necessary, by auction sale of the property. Two days later, viz., on 14 December 1918, Data Ram himself executed a document which is described as an agreement. He recited that he had been adopted in pursuance of instructions from Dalip Singh and that Mt. Manohri had made certain arrangements of her property according to the directions of the said Dalip Singh. By this document, Data Ram declared that he would abide by all the conditions laid down in the two documents executed by Mt. Manohri (one dated 12 December 1918 and the other said to be dated 13 December 1918, but not forthcoming), and further declared that his adoption was conditional on his acceptance of the stipulations contained in the said documents. He bound himself to carry out those terms and added that in the case of his failure the conditions might be enforced in Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs brought the suit with the allegation that in spite of the execution of the documents Data Ram had denied the plaintiffs right to receive the sum of Rs. 15,000 and accordingly they had asked for a declaration that they ware entitled to that sum of money and they further prayed that a charge might be declared to exist over the entire property of Mt. Manohri in the hands of Data Ram. Data Ram's defence was that he had executed the document dated 14th December 1918 while he was yet a minor, that it was void for want of consideration, that it was executed under undue pressure, that the suit was premature, and that the plaintiffs had no right of action. The learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs except in this: that he found that there was no charge on the property. The learned Subordinate Judge accordingly decreed the suit for a declaration of Data Ram's liability only. In this Court both the parties have appealed. The contention of Mitter Sen and Gurusaran Das is that a charge ought to have been declared over the entire property in the hands of Data Ram. The contentions of Data Ram are several, but only the following have been urged before us: (1) The documents dated 12 and 14 December 1918 were executed after the adoption and were, therefore, not binding on the defendant. (2) The conditions laid down in the documents are void in law. (3) The plaintiffs have no right to sue. The question of defendant's minority was raised, but was not argued upon. When the appeals came for hearing before this Court two issues were remanded. They were directed towards the nature of the estate held by Mt. Manohri. The findings of the learned Subordinate Judges on those issues are to the effect that Mt. Manohri held only a life interest in the property of her husband which was ancestral in the latter's hand and that she was not competent to make any Will with respect to the said property. The learned Counsel for the parties have accepted the correctness of these findings, although the plaintiffs filed objections to the findings. We have now to take it that the property was inalienable in the hands of Mt. Manohri.

(3.) The questions for determination in these two appeals therefore are: (1) Whether it was agreed at the time of the adoption, and as a condition precedent to the adoption, that Data Ram would make the several payments he was directed to make by Mt. Manohri's document dated the 12 of December 1918. (2) Whether if such was not the case the agreement of Data Ram is void for want of consideration. (3) Whether the plaintiffs are competent to maintain the suit although they were no parties to the documents of the 12 and 14 of December 1918. (4) Whether the plaintiffs have any charge over the property in Data Ram's possession.