MT RAGHBIRI Vs. LAKHPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing her suit for possession and for mesne profits of some zamindari property. The relevant facts may be briefly stated:

(2.) This pedigree is admitted by the parties. According to the plaintiff's case, Narpat died about the year 1916 leaving a son Dharam Singh who is also now dead and who was the husband of the plaintiff. On 7 February 1936, Dharam Singh made a gift (by deed Ex. 6) of 125 bighas of land (set out in Schedule A) in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter during the mutation proceedings Lakhpat, defendant, objected to mutation in the name of the plaintiff on the ground that the property was joint family property and he was joint with Dharam Singh and consequently Dharam Singh was not competent to make; the gift in favour of his wife. It appears that on 18 June 1936 parties agreed to refer their dispute to arbitration and filed a joint application (Ex. 3) in the revenue Court to that effect. The arbitrators filed an award (Ex. 7) on 25 June 1936. It was to the effect that Mt. Eaghbiri's name was to be mutated as against 41 bighas 13 biswas (pukhta) and that Dharam Singh's name should be maintained over the rest of the property (mentioned in Schedule B). On Dharam Singh's death Mt. Raghbiri applied for mutation of her name in respect of the property comprised in Schedule B. Lakhpat Singh defendant raised objections and he was ultimately successful in the appellate Court and his name was mutated over the rest of the property, i.e., property mentioned in Schedule B. Thereupon Mt. Eaghbiri filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the recovery of possession over the property comprised in Schedule B and for mesne profits. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that originally he, Narpat and Dharam Singh constituted a joint Hindu family and that after the death of Narpat he and Dharam Singh continued as members of a joint Hindu family and that on the death of Dharam. Singh the property came to him by survivorship. He. also alleged that the deed of gift executed by Dharam Singh in favour of the plaintiff was farzi and further that the amount of mesne profits claimed was excessive. The property in question was a part of the property which once belonged to the joint Hindu family of which Lakhpat, Narpat and Dharam Singh were members.

(3.) The Court of first instance after a consideration of the materials on the record found these facts : (1) That Lakhpat Singh, Narpat Singh and Dharam Singh constituted a joint Hindu family. (2) That Lakhpat Singh subsequently in the year 1926 gifted his property to his son Lal Singh. It may be mentioned here that this deed of gift was attacked on behalf of the defendant as a farzi transaction but the Court has found that the gift in favour of Lal Singh was a genuine transaction. (3) That the gift-deed dated 7 February 1936 in favour of the plaintiff was genuine. (4) That the arbitration proceedings had been properly conducted and the award was not vitiated by any fraud committed by the plaintiff.