DARSHAN SINGH Vs. WALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The estate originally belonged to one Rai Singh who died in the year 1876. Some time before his death he had made a will, the contents of which are to be found in an application made by him on 7 October 1876, to the revenue Court. Under that will he left his moveable and immovable properties including, village Mainakot which is in dispute in this appeal to his widows and after the death of the surviving widow to one Ram Lal whom he had brought up as a son. He declared that Ram Lal would be the owner of the property after his death. He then went on to provide that he who is Ram Lal's son would be the owner of the estate after Ram Lal; and if there be no son to Ram Lal, Dilsukh Singh, Hori Lal, Lachhman Singh, Lal Singh and the widow of Dilsukh Singh would be the heirs and owners of the estate Ram Lal appears to have died about the years 1897-1898 without there having been any son born to him. By that time four of the five ultimate legatees were dead. But Hori Singh survived Ram Lal and died on 8 March 1907. Mt. Tulsha Kunwar, one of the widows of Rai Singh, had died much earlier in 1890, but the other widow Mt. Sunder Kunwar remained alive till 29 May 1917. All these facts are now settled on the findings, returned by the Court below on the issues sent down by us. These facts are not now disputed before us.

(2.) The contesting defendants ancestor had purchased the property in dispute from Dilsukh Singh and the other legatees (excluding Ram Lal) in the year 1877 and they have remained in possession of the property ever since then.

(3.) The plaintiffs case was that the bequest never came into effect and on the death of the last surviving widow Mt. Sunder Kunwar in the year 1917, the plaintiffs as the next reversioners of Rai Singh succeeded to the estate and are entitled to its possession. The fact that the plaintiffs would be the next reversioners of Rai Singh has never been disputed. The contesting defendants pleaded that the bequest did not altogether fail and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to sue.