LALDAS Vs. GURUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relationship of the parties to the suit of which this appeal by the plaintiff Laldas and another by defendant 2, Bairangdas (F.A. No. 131 of 1926) arises is shown in the genealogical table (see p. 5) attached to this judgment. In addition to the persons mentioned in that table two other members of the family survived Mahant Lakhmidas, a daughter Askuar Bai and a third widow Sonkuar Bai, both childless. The dispute is over a part of an estate of 103 villages in the Bilaspur District known as Lormi. Wasu-deodas was the eldest son of Lakhmidas with Ramkrishnadas second and Bajrangdas third.

(2.) WHETHER the sons of Lakhmidas ceased to form a joint Hindu family before the year 1901, as alleged by the plaintiff, or not is immaterial, as they certainly did cease to do so in that year, though the partition then made indicates that they had not separated before the death of Wasudeodas in 1899 as only two villages were allotted to his widow which she was to hold for her life only. Early in 1901 Bamkrishnadas, the eldest surviving son of Lakmidas filed a suit against his three brothers and the widow of Wasudeodas claiming possession of all the 103 villages on the ground that they were an impartible estate passing to a single heir. The case was compromised, and on 16th October 1901 a decree was passed in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

(3.) THE numbers of the villages are of course not an exact measure of the relative values of the shares, but it appears that the portions of the three younger brothers were approximately equal while Bamkrishna-das as the eldest got a slightly larger share. The villages allotted to the ladies were to be held by them for life only.