GOVIND Vs. CHINTAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellate Court considered that accepting the statements of the defendant it must be held that the defendant had not by himself and his predecessors-in title held the fields in suit continuously from a date previous to 1895. The defendant's story was that one Laxman was in possession of the fields, after his death his daughter Mathura obtained the property through a will executed by Laxman, and after the death of Mathura the defendants who are her sons were in possession, although they had a sister. The learned Additional District Judge held that according to this story the property became stridhan of Mathura and at her death was inherited by her daughter : the appellants not being the heirs of Mathura could not tack the period of Mathura's possession to their own.

(2.) IN second appeal it was first urged that Section 47, Berar Alienated Villages Tenancy Law, did not require continuity through a pedigree of legal heirs of the original holders. But the appellants if not legal heirs of their mother must be considered to have come in possession as trespassers. It cannot be said that their mother was their predecessor-in-title. This ground therefore fails.

(3.) BUT evidence of statements made at the time of execution cannot be admitted for the purpose of varying the terms of the will. The testator was a native of Berar and was governed by the personal law of Berar : the personal law of the husband of the beneficiary can have nothing to do with the interpretation of the will : there is a presumption that in the absence of restricting phrases the estate conveyed to a daughter by a man governed by the Berar Personal Law is non-restricted estate and the property received is her stridhan.