MT RAJPALI KUNWAR Vs. SURJU RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions have been referred to us for answer: (1) Is the agreement dated 20 December 1927 a family settlement? (2) Is the plaintiff entitled to question the said agreement.?

(2.) The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that an agreement dated 20 December 1927, was null and void against her. She is the sister of Sheo Shobhit Rai, who died about 1926, and on whose death the said agreement was entered into between his widows Mt. Jota Kunwar and Mt. Rumali Kunwar, his step-mother Mt. Rajwanta, another sister's son Narsingh and Kashi Rai, Sarju Rai and Bhagwant Rai, three nearest reversioners at the time. A deed of gift had been executed in 1926 by the senior widow Mt. Jota and the step-mother Mt. Rajwanta in favour of Narsingh, who is alleged by the defendants to have been a sister's son; but that fact was not admitted in the written statement in this case. We know very little about the exact nature of the suit that was brought by Kashi Rai and others, but the recitals in the agreement show that the two ladies Jota and Rajwanta were setting up a will of the deceased Sheo Shobhit Rai in their favour and were claiming mutation of names on that account. The application for mutation of names was contested by the collaterals and some revenue cases were pending at the time. We also know that a suit was brought in the civil Court by the three collaterals against the widows and the donee and it was pending at the time. The three collaterals were rather distant relations of Sheo Shobhit Rai, being the great grandson of Paltan Rai, who was the great grand father of Sheo Shobhit Rai. There is nothing on the record to show that; the collaterals either brought a suit for possession or even alleged that they had been joint with the deceased and were entitled to immediate possession in preference to the two widows. All that happened might have been that they brought a suit for declaration that the deed of gift executed by the two ladies in favour of Narsingh was null and void and would not be binding on the reversioners after the death of the two widows. It was in the course of this litigation that the agreement in question was executed by all the parties who were then involved in litigation. The document was duly registered. The learned Subordinate Judge says, that it was filed in Court, but there is no direct evidence to prove even that fact.

(3.) The present plaintiff Mt. Rajpali Kunwar who is admittedly a sister of the deceased Sheo Shobhit Rai was, as the law then stood, not any heir at all to the estate of Sheo Shobhit Rai. She was altogether left out and was of course neither made a party to the agreement nor represented by any one on her behalf. Not being an heir at all she was altogether ignored. Indeed it was clearly recited in the agreement that excepting the collaterals there was no other heir of the deceased. Under this agreement the donee gave up his rights under the deed of gift and the step-mother Mt. Rajwanta claimed only a maintenance allowance without any interest in the estate. Properties in two villages were put up in possession of the three collaterals as absolute owners from that very time and the rest of the property of Sheo Shobhit Rai remained in the possession of the two widows as Hindu widows, and it was provided that after their deaths the collaterals or their heirs would enter into possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owners. The document was described as a family settlement of the disputes among the parties.