CHHOTEY SINGH Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decree of the lower appellate Court affirming the decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the suit with costs. The suit was for possession over zamindari property on the allegation that the property belonged to one Jograj Singh who died in 1886 leaving a widow, Mt. Gaura: that Mt. Gaura was in possession of her husband's property as a Hindu widow and that the property in suit was also an accretion to her husband's estate. It may be mentioned here that the property in suit was acquired by Mt. Gaura in the year 1910 admittedly out of the savings of the income derived from her husband's property in her possession. Prior to the sale in 1910 the property in question had been taken by Mt. Gaura under a mortgage in 1902. Mt. Gaura transferred this property along with some other property in favour of one Mt. Janka, widow of Ram Lal, by means of a sale-deed dated 30 September 1926, for a consideration of Rs. 2000. The plaintiff went on to allege that Ram Singh was the nearest reversioner to Jograj Singh at the time when the succession opened, namely, some 15 days after the execution of the sale-deed dated 30 September 1926. Earn Singh executed two gift-deeds in favour of the plaintiff of all his property including the property in suit on 7 May 1929 and 12 December 1934 (Exs. 14 and 15). The plaintiff's case further was that during the last days of Mt. Gaura, Bhagwan Singh and Bakhtawar Singh, who were sister's sons of Jograj Singh, and Puttu Singh, son of Bakhtawar Singh, lived with Mt. Gaura and under their influence Mt. Gaura executed the sale deed dated 30 September 1926. It was also alleged that Chaturbhuj defendant along with Puttu Singh got Mt. Gaura to execute the sale-deed in question which was farzi and without consideration and without legal necessity.

(2.) The suit was filed against Mt. Janka, who, however, died and the names of. Chaturbhuj and his sons were brought on the record as her legal representatives. The two sons of Chaturbhuj claimed succession to Mt. Janka's interest on the basis of a will executed by her in their favour. The suit was contested substantially on the grounds: (1) that the property in suit was acquired from the money which Mt. Gaura has received from her own parents and (2) that the sale-deed was for consideration and was justified by legal necessity. There were various other pleas including the one alleging that the property in suit was the stridhan property of Mt. Gaura and she had full right of disposal over it. The learned Munsif found that only Rs. 600, had been proved to have been paid to Mt. Gaura at the time of the registration of the sale-deed but that no legal necessity had been proved. He also found that the property in question was not acquired out of the savings or the income of Jograj Singh's property and, in the alternative, he found that taking that the property had been acquired out of the savings of her husband's property, it was the absolute property of Mt. Gaura who had full power to alienate the same and the plaintiff's suit must fail on that ground. In view of his findings that the property in dispute was the absolute property of Mt. Gaura and the plaintiff had no right to question her alienation the learned Munsif dismissed the suit with costs.

(3.) On appeal, it was contended that Mt. Gaura was not the absolute owner of the property in dispute and therefore she had only a limited power of disposal over it like any other Hindu widow, and as there was no legal necessity for the sale-deed in question it was entirely illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge, after a consideration of the entire evidence on the record, recorded his finding that it was clearly proved that the property in dispute was purchased out of the income of the property which Mt. Gaura obtained from her husband. According to that Judge it was also clear from the evidence that she never intended to treat this property as a part of the widow's estate, but that she always treated it as separate and self acquired property and dealt with it as such. The learned Judge further held that the property in dispute being separate and self acquired property of Mt. Gaura she had absolute right over it and the plaintiff had no right to challenge the alienation made by her in favour of Mt. Janka deceased. He also affirmed the findings of the trial Court that the consideration of Rs. 600 only was proved and the sale-deed in dispute was not executed for legal necessity.