LAWS(PVC)-1928-6-57

BHOLA RAM Vs. DHANI RAM

Decided On June 07, 1928
BHOLA RAM Appellant
V/S
DHANI RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances which led to the institution of the suit out of which the present second appeal by the plaintiff has arisen are as follows:

(2.) Mt. Saro Kunwar who originally owned the property in dispute-shares in two villages in Hamirpur District-made a gift of the same by a deed dated the 12th June 1894, to Mt. Budhia Kuar, then aged 10, about eleven days before the latter's marriage with Baldeo Prasad, a man of fifty and a brother of Mt. Saro Kuar who appears to be a lady possessed of extensive properties. It was due to her position and efforts that an unequal match of that kind was agreed to by the bride's parents who were themselves of limited means. Accordingly the marriage was celebrated and in due course mutation of names was effected in favour of Mt. Budhia Kuar. She died as a childless widow on 16 March 1912, Baldeo having predeceased her. On her death mutation of names was effected in favour of Mt. Saro Kuar, who later on made a gift of it to Dhani Ram, the defendant-respondent by a deed dated 21 August 1913, The plaintiff instituted the present suit on 5th March 1913, claiming the property as the nearest reversioner of her husband Baldeo, and, therefore, heir to her stridhan as the property in dispute is alleged to be.

(3.) The defence raised a number of pleas. It was denied that the property in suit was the stridhan of Mt. Budhia Kuar, in which she could have a heritable interest. It was alleged to have been granted to her as maintenance for life, so that on the death of Mt. Budhia Kuar, the grantor Mt. Saro Kuar could take possession as full owner and make a gift of it to the defendant. The plaintiff's relationship with Baldeo was denied. The marriage of Mt. Budhia Kuar with Baldeo was said to have been performed in an unapproved form with the result that her stridhan could not in law devolve on her husband's reversioners. Mt. Budhia Kuar's death was alleged to have occurred on a date more than 12 years before the institution of the suit which was said to be barred by limitation on that account.