CHUNILAL PRANSHANKAR AND BHOGILAL VALABHRAM Vs. SURAJRAM HARIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, upon which the questions of law in the two second appeals turn, are shortly these: The property in dispute originally belonged to one Dowlatrai Becharlal. He made a will on the 9 of October 1889, and died ten days later, leaving him surviving two daughters, Ladkore and Mani. Mani being a minor, the District Court of Ahmedabad appointed her maternal grandmother Raliata and her maternal uncle Chunilal guardians of her person, and the Nazir of the Court guardian of her property, under the Guardians and Wards Act. By the order of appointment the guardians of the person of the minor were enjoined not to give the girl in marriage without the Court's permission. Subsequently Chunilal applied to the Court for. permission to brother the girl to one Harprasad. The permission was granted, but some disagreement having arisen between Chunilal and Harprasad's grandfather, the former applied to the Court for revocation of the order granting the permission. The Court declined to revoke the order; nevertheless Chunilal gave the girl in marriage to another boy. This was in violation of the Court's order. Some time after that, Mani lost her husband, and she herself died childless on the 22nd of November 1905.

(2.) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Second Appeal No. 252 brought the suit claiming in their plaint the property in dispute, which Mani had left at her death, as reversionary heirs of her father Dowlatrai. They alleged that under Dowlatrai's will the property had come to Mani but with only a life-interest in it; and that on her death it descended to them as Dowlatrai's heirs.

(3.) At the trial of the suit the said respondents prayed for amendment of the plaint to the effect that Mani had taken an absolute estate in the property under her father's will and that on her death they were entitled to it as her heirs. The amendment was allowed and evidence led accordingly.