GAURI NATH KAKAJI Vs. GAYA KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit at the instance of the surviving widow of Laiq Singh, who was the owner of certain villages situate in the District of Hardoi. The plaintiff in that suit, who is the respondent here, prayed for decree for possession of the villages in question at that time in possession of the appellant under mortgages in favour of his author (?). The Subordinate Judge of Hardoi granted decree in the respondent's favour, but only on the footing that in so far as the mortgages which had been granted by the senior widow were justified by necessity, she was bound as a condition of obtaining possession to pay the amount due to the mortgagees. From his judgment an appeal was taken to the Chief Court of Oudh which by decree dated March 4, 1926, reversed the judgment and decree d dated April 29, 1924, of the Subordinate Judge and held that the respondent was entitled to an unconditional decree for possession of the villages. From this decree the present appeal has been brought.

(2.) The material facts have been so fully dealt with in the judgment of the Chief Court of Oudh that it is unnecessary to recapitulate them except in the barest outline. The owner of the villages, Laiq Singh, was a Hindu who owned seven villages and shares in others. He died on August 13, 1885, and was survived by two widows, Musamnaat Umrao and the respondent. Prior to his death he had burdened his estate by mortgages for the principal sum of Rs. 28,000 bearing interest at the usual rate. This obligation was recognised by the widows and after a suit had been commenced by the mortgagees against them a compromise was effected in 1887 under which they agreed to divide the responsibility. Umrao Kunwar, who had at the time (presumably under an arrangement with her co-widow) obtained sole possession of a half share in the villages of Sakraori and Janwar, agreed to transfer the possession of this property to the mortgagees that they might enjoy the usufruct and repay themselves the principal sum of Rs. 15,983-6 and interest, while the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 17,779 in cash on condition that on such payment she was to be held under no liability in respect of her husband's mortgages. The respondent did in fact discharge this liability, but the senior widow did not put the mortgagees in possession of her share in the villages until some years there after. It has been, however, found as a fact that the rents of the villages collected by the mortgagees have long since extinguished the principal sum and interest due to them in respect of Laiq Singh's mortgages.

(3.) Following on this compromise the widows proceeded to partition Laiq Singh's property through the Revenue Courts, that is to say, as afterwards explained, to separate and divide the enjoyment of the widow's life estate. In the final result the villages specified in the plaint were assigned to Umrao and the other villages to the respondent. During this period the relations between the two widows were anything but friendly. The senior widow had by a suit at the instance of a boy whom she said she had adopted with her husband's authority sought to deprive the respondent of any share in his inheritance. This suit failed.