RUSTAM SINGH Vs. BHOLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree and order of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun giving the plaintiff a decree in the following circumstances: The property in suit consists of certain plots in the village of Dosauli, pargana Bisauli. It used to be part of the property of one Hansraj, who died in 1875. On his death his half- share in the village was inherited by his two nephews, Phul Singh and Bhola Singh. The plots in suit, amounting in area to nearly 70 pakka bighas, were recorded by the revenue Courts as being in the possession of Mt. Subarni "for maintenance." It is admitted that this Mt. Subarni was not strictly speaking and according to Hindu law the widow of Hansraj, but had been living with him for a considerable time as a permanent arrangement.

(2.) In 1881 a partition between Phul Singh and Bhola Singh was carried out by the revenue Courts and two mahals were created, the plots in suit being allotted to the two mahals in equal portions, Phul Singh died about, 1900, leaving two sons, Rustam Singh and Dewan Singh, who are the defendant appellants in the present suit. On the 8 October 1921 Mt. Subarni died. Mutation was made on a joint application of Bhola Singh on the one hand and Rustam Singh and Dewan Singh on the other, by which the plots of which she had been in possession were taken into the two mahals half and half, as had been the case in the partition of 1881, but in 1925 the present suit was brought by Bhola Singh claiming that he had become the owner of the whole area on the death of Mt. Subarni, and asking for the ejectment of the defendants from the plots of which they had taken possession. Bhola Singh's plaint was based on the statements of fact which are given above. He further said that Hansraj had in his lifetime given about 300 bighas kham of sir land to Mt. Subarni aforesaid, in lieu of her maintenance allowance, and the said Musammat had a life interest therein. Later on in para. 5 he said: On the death of the said musammat the plaintiff, the reversionary heir of Hansraj deceased, became the exclusive owner of the miscellaneous property known after the name of Mt. Subarni according to Dharm Shaster.

(3.) The defence was that succession to the property had opened on the death of Hansraj, and that the plaintiff, the father of the appellants, and the appellants themselves became the owners,.and that the life-interest of Mt. Subarni did not affect the succession in any way.