BALBHADAR SINGH Vs. UDAI NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties. The plaintiffs are the sons and grandson of one Nakchhed Singh and claimed to have inherited these properties through Nakchhed Singh by virtue of a deed of settlement dated the 5 December 1888, executed by Gopal Singh. It appears that in that year Gopal Singh was the sole surviving male member of his family, and had dependent on him his deceased brother's widow Mt. Rahsa, a daughter's son, Nakchhed Singh and the widows of two predeceased sons of his own. He wanted to make provision in his lifetime for these people and executed the deed in question under which he made grants of various items of property to these people in succession. The plaintiffs interpretation of this document is that the grants made to the three ladies were grants to them for their lifetime and the remainder belonged to Gopal Singh which was inherited on his death by his daughter's son Nakchhed Singh from whom it has devolved on the present plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants contended, that the deed had the effect of creating Hindu female's estates in favour of these ladies and that no undisposed of interest remained with Gopal Singh so that when the last of these ladies died and Gopal Singh also was dead the estate devolved not on Gopal Singh's daughter's son Nakchhed Singh but on his collaterals whom the defendants represented.

(2.) A translation of the deed of settlement is fully set forth in the judgment of the Court below and it is not necessary to repeat it. Briefly speaking, Gopal Singh made a grant of a share in one village to Nakchhed Singh and shares in two other villages to his deceased brother's widow. He then granted the shares in all the other villages together with a house to his sons wives in the following words: The rest of the shares and the house I have given to my sons wives oh this condition that the said widows should remain in possession of the properties given to them and should maintain themselves with the profit thereof. None of my heirs or reversioners shall, in my lifetime or after my death, have any right to the property which I have given to my daughter's son. My sons wives and my younger brother's wife should remain in possession of their shares which I have given them for their whole life. After the death of my younger brother's wife her share also shall go to my both the sons wives; and on the death of one of the sons wives the other shall get her share also. In short, so long as the three Musammats are, or any of them is, alive, none of my reversioners shall have a claim to their shares.

(3.) After this he provided that when all the three ladies were deal the house, grove and a plot in village Mandra Par should pass to his daughter's son Nakchhed Singh and neither he nor his heirs would have a right or claim to it. The question before us is whether the grant to the widows of his sons was a grant of a life- estate only with remainder to Gopal Singh or whether it amounted to a creation of a Hindu female's estate as recognized by the Hindu Law.