MT CHUNNA KUNWAR Vs. MTRASILI KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same suit, which was partly decreed by the Civil-Judge of Aligarh. F.A. No. 392 of 1939 has been filed by the first three defendants to the suit and the appellant in F.A. No. 427 of 1943 is the plaintiff to the suit. The suit related to the estate of a Gujerati Brahmin, Jani Shyam Shankar alias Shyaman Shankar.

(2.) Jani Shyam Shankar died on 11 April-1914, leaving him surviving a widow, Mt. Chunni Kunwar, and five daughters. The widow continued in possession of the estate of her husband till her death in the year 1936. During this period, she made certain alienations. The plaintiff, Mt. Rasili Kunwar, is a daughter of a deceased daughter of Shyam Shankar, named Mt. Maggo Kunwar, and she claims under an alleged will of Shyam Shankar. The suit was brought against 19 defendants. The relationship of the first 15 defendants inter se and their relationship with the plaintiff will appear from the following extract of pedigree taken from a larger pedigree set out in the plaint.

(3.) The three surviving daughters of Shyam Shankar were impleaded as the first three defendants and the sons of Ratan Shankar and Mathura Shankar as defendants 4 to 15. The transferees from the widow, Mt. Chunni Kunwar, were impleaded as defendants 16 to 19. The plaintiff alleged that the transfers made by the widow were not justified by any legal necessity and were not binding upon her. She, therefore, prayed for possession of a one-fifth share in the estate of Shyam Shankar, including the property in the possession of the transferees, and also for a decree for mesne profits. The property in suit consists of zamindari property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and house property mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint. The defendants denied the will and alleged that Shyam Shankar had died intestate. The transferees further pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value and that the transfers in their favour were made for legal necessity and were binding on the plaintiff. It is not necessary to mention other pleas raised in defence because they have not been pressed before us.