DEO NARAIN SINGH Vs. JAGAT NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and joint possession. The properties have been given different momenclatures. I, however, adopt those given in the lower appellate Court's judgment. The plaintiff's case was that Jaipal, the common ancestor, was joint with his four sons and grandsons, and while the family was joint, properties in lists A, B, C, D and E, were acquired under permanent leases, and were joint family properties and that later on property in list F was acquired out of the joint family funds, though in the name of Deo Narrain, defendant. The plaintiffs allege that Jaipal died in 1922, while still joint, and they have, therefore, an interest in all the properties in suit.

(2.) Deo Narain Singh and others contested the claim on the ground that Jaipal separated from his sons before 1916, that properties in lists A, B, C and D were the exclusive properties of Jaipal, and that under a will, dated the 10 of February 1916, he gave properties in lists A, B, C and D to the defendants, who have acquired exclusive title thereto. It was further pleaded that properties in list E were not covered by the leases, but were subsequently acquired by the defendants under another lease of 1919, and that properties in both the lists E and F were the self-acquired properties of the defendants. With regard to the will, the plaintiffs replied that ail the properties were non-occupancy tenancies and were not transferable and the will was invalid.

(3.) The lower appellate Court has found distinctly that the properties acquired under the permanent leases in the time of Jaipal was not his separate properties but were joint family properties. It has thus held that all the members of Jaipal's family had an interest in the properties acquired under the permanent leases. The lower appellate Court has also found that Jaipal had actually separated from his sons in 1915, that is some time before the execution of the will of 1916. He has also found that the will was genuine and was executed out of free will, and without any undue influence.