MT LAKHNA Vs. SAHU SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising out of an interpleader suit. The subject matter of the dispute is a house which belonged to one Bhagwan Das, deceased. The tenant of the house is one Ishri and after the death of Bhagwan Das two persons laid claim to the rent of the house, viz. Mt. Lakhna, the present appellant, and Sahu Sita Ram, one of the respondents. Ishri finding himself in this position brought interpleader proceedings which were ultimately fought out between the two rival claimants to this rent. Bhagwan Das died leaving two sons Parsotam Das and Sita Ram. Parsotam Das died leaving surviving him, his widow the present appellant.

(2.) On 18 May 1927 Bhagwan Das made a will. In that will he mentions the house in question in this case and states that the income derived from the house has been and is being spent by him on virtuous actions, charitable and religious purposes and pujapath of Sri Thakur Satnarayan Maharaj. Later in the will he mentions "that he was greatly displeased with his son Sita Ram and on the other hand greatly pleased with his son Parsotam Das. He then states that he is making his will in favour of Parsotam Das though he, the testator, is to remain the owner of his entire property during his lifetime. The material portion of the will is as follows: After my death it shall be incumbent on my legatee to perform my obsequies according to the rites add customs of the caste and he shall be the owner in possession of all my moveable and Immoveable properties and realise the undermentioned dues, and spend the income of the above-mentioned house on virtuous actions and charitable purposes and the pujapath above mentioned and keep up my name. He shall not mortgage or sell the above mentioned house and if he does so, it shall be considered void and invalid.

(3.) Upon the death of Bhagwan Das, his son Parsotam Das came into possession of all the properties and he undoubtedly collected the rent of this house from Ishri. After the death of Parsotam Das, hia widow, the present appellant, claimed the rent. The respondent, Sita Ram, also claimed this rent as the shebait of the idol Sri Thakur Satnarayan Maharaj mentioned in the will. He claimed that by the will the income of this particular house and indeed the house itself was devised or bequeathed to the idol and that the will only appointed Parsotam Das the first shebait of the idol. As no provision was made for the successor to Parsotam Das, Sita Ram as the nearest heir of the founder claimed that he, by law, became the next shebait, hence he claimed the rent from Ishri.