SOHAN LAL Vs. MTBHAGWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's first appeal arising out of a suit for possession over the properties specified in the plaint. The facts of the case can briefly be stated as follows: Babu Ballabh Das had four sons, Gopal Das, Jhabbu Lal, Gobind Ram and Sohan Lal. Gobind Barn's wife was one Mt. Jamna Dei. He had two sons, Durga Pershad and Bhagwan Das. Babu Ballabh Das and his four sons constituted a joint Hindu family. Ballabh Das died in 1906. It is the case of both parties that shortly before his death a partition of the family estate had taken place, but no deed had been executed in the life-time of Babu Ballabh Das. It is necessary to state here that Babu Gobind Ram, his son, had died in the life-time of Ballabh Das and so had Bhagwan Das, one of the two sons of Gobind Ram. Bhagwan Das left one widow, Mt. Bhagwati. When the partition was made Durga Pershad, the minor son of Gobind Earn, represented this branch.

(2.) Shortly after the death of Babu Ballabh Das, three deeds of relinquishment were executed in 1907, under which the four branches of the family got certain properties exclusively. The plaintiff in the case before us is Sohan Lal, one of the sons of Babu Ballabh Das. His case is that the share, which was allotted at the partition to Gobind Earn, was held by his son Durga Pershad till his death. According to him, after the death of Durga Pershad, Mt. Jamna Dei, his mother, got possession over the properties in suit. She died in 1929. The plaintiff alleges that on the death of Mt. Jamna Dei he became entitled to the properties in suit as a reversioner of Durga Pershad deceased.

(3.) Jamna Dei under a deed, dated 27 June 1924, made a gift of one of the houses in suit valued at Rs. 10,000 in, favour of Srimati Arya Pratinithi Sabha. She also executed a will on 23 November 1929, under which she willed all the properties which she had got from Durga Pershad, to Mt. Bhagwati. Under this-will a small portion of another house situate in Muhalla Pipal Mandi was given to Mathur Vaish Pathshala, defendant 2. The plaintiff claims that these deeds are not binding upon him, and he therefore.-sued the defendants to get possession over the properties in suit. The defence of the defendants was that on the 4 July 1906 Gobind Ram made a will in favour of his wife, Mt. Jamna Dei, under which he-gave an absolute estate to her in the properties owned by him, and, therefore the lady became full owner of the properties in suit. It was denied that the properties- specified in the plaint were the properties of Durga Prasad in which the plaintiff could claim a reversionary interest on the death of Durga Pershad. Another plea taken was that in view of the deeds of relinquishment, which were executed by Sohan Lal, plaintiff, and the other branches, representing the sons of Babu Ballabh. Das, the plaintiff was estopped from claiming the properties in suit. Some other pleas were also taken, but it is not necessary to refer to them here. It is enough to say that the above were the two principal points on which the case was fought between the parties in the Court below. The learned Subordinate Judge who decided the case came to the conclusion that the defendants had been, able to establish that Gobind Ram, the husband of Mt. Jamna Dei, had made an oral will giving away all his properties to-her.