JAGRANI Vs. BISHESHAR DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immovable property brought by one Musammat Jagrani Misrani. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The court of first appeal Confirmed this decree and a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the second appeal.

(2.) Nirban Dube had three sons, Gulab Dube, Chandrika Dube and Ramphal Dube. Chandrika Dube left him surving his widow and his daughter (the present plaintiff). On the death of Chandrika Dube the name of the widow was recorded, and continued to be recorded up to the time of her death. Ramphal Dube had a son Mulai Dube. The defendants are the sons of Mulai Dube. On the death of the widow of Chandrika Dube disputes arose between Jagrani on the one side and Mulai Dube on the other as to whose name should be recorded.. Apparently Jagrani was claiming that the sons of Nirban Dube were separate, that on the death of her father Chandrika Dube his widow was not only recorded but she was entitled to the property, and that upon the death of the widow the plaintiff became entitled to the property for the estate of a Hindu female. Mulai Dube, on the other hand, was apparently claiming that Chandrika Dube and Ramphal Dube were joint and that the name of the widow of Chandrika was recorded merely for consolation. It has been definitely found by the court below that Chandrika Dube and Ramphal Dube were separate. On this finding it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property unless the defendants can show that she transferred her interest or that they have some other legal or equitable defences.

(3.) I now propose shortly to state what actually happened according to the findings of the court, apart altogether from legal questions such as the admissibility of evidence. I have mentioned the dispute which occurred on the death of the widow of Chandrika. The dispute was in mutation proceedings. This matter ended by an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff in which she stated that the matter had been compromised, that she, gave up her rights to the property and that the name of Mulai might be recorded. The order which the mutation officer made on this petition was as follows--"mutation according to the compromise." The name of Mulai was accordingly recorded. It appears that the full arrangement (which does not appear in the petition) between the parties was that certain debts due by the plaintiff s father and mother should be paid off including a debt incurred for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff s daughter. Mulai executed two simple money bonds in favour nominally of a third party but really for the benefit of the plaintiff. Mulai managed to get back these bonds and the plaintiff never got the amount nor did Mulai discharge them they are long since barred by limitation. The plaintiff alleged that this compromise was brought about by fraud and that she knew nothing about it. The courts have found that fraud was not proved, that the plaintiff knew what she was doing although the consideration was inadequate.