LAWS(PVC)-1895-7-1

GANGA BAKHSH Vs. JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH

Decided On July 27, 1895
Ganga Bakhsh Appellant
V/S
Jagat Bahadur Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in this case was brought by Sheopal Singh, who is now represented by the Respondent, against Sarabjit Singh, the father of the Appellants, who are his legal representatives. It sought to have a deed of gift executed by Sheopal on the 7th of August, 1886, declared to be illegal and null and void, and to have a decree for possession of the property given by it. The facts which led to the execution of the deed are these. The villages, a share of which is the subject of the deed, were formerly the property of Sheogholam Singh, who died in the year 1854 or 1855, leaving a widow, Mussumat Golab Kunwar, surviving him. He had one son, Bikramjit Singh, who died childless in 1843 or 1844, leaving a widow, Umrao Kunwar, surviving him. On the death of Sheogholam, Golab Kunwar succeeded to the estate by right of inheritance, and on her death in 1882 or 1883 Umrao Kunwar took possession of it, and kept possession until her death on the 13th of June, 1886. On the death of Golab Kunwar the persons entitled to the estate, as the heirs of Sheogholam, were Sheopal Singh and Jag-pal Singh, the only surviving sons of his paternal uncles, Sheopal being by custom entitled to a 9a. 1p. share, and Jagpal to the remaining 6a. 11p. share. They had made no claim during the life of Umrao, but on her death they became claimants. Their right to succeed was disputed by two claimants: one, Bhagwant Singh the younger brother of Sarabjit (he and Sarahjit being sons of a brother of Sheopal), who alleged that he was the adopted son of Sheogholam, which if true would have entitled him to succeed in preference to Golab; the other, Kashi Bakhsh, the great-grandson of another brother of Sheopal who set up that he had been adopted by Umrao Kunwar. The claim of Bhagwant was supported by Sheopal, and that of Kashi Bakhsh was supported by his natural uncle, Rajah Sukhmangal Singh, who had been adopted out of his family into the family of the Rajah of Shamaria, and was a man of considerable wealth and influence. On the death of Umrao the Rajah had taken possession, on behalf of his nephew, of one of the villages, and Kashi Bakhsh had applied for mutation of names in respect of all the villages. In consequence, apparently, of this, on the 6th of July, 1886, a letter was sent by Sarabjit to Sheopal, in which he says: The first step to be taken should be this: that you should post two men of your own. Let them stay where his men are staying. Do not let it be without your men, otherwise you will lose your right. When Mir Sahib comes to Bareli I shall arrive there on marriage party's return. I shall then write full particulars. The suit which will be instituted in Court will be filed in your name and not in my name. Everything else is all right.

(2.) SHEOPAL in his reply the next day to this letter, after saying he had sent two more men, said: Whatever steps you take and arrangements you propose to make in this matter, those will be done.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY Sheopal went to Bareli, and on the 7th of August the deed which is the subject of the suit was executed by him, and was registered on the same day, the execution of it being admitted by him to the Officiating Registrar.