KUMAR RAGHAVA SURENDRA SAHI Vs. BABUI LACHMI KOER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six appeals arise out of five suits which were brought claiming various interests in certain property, the last male holder of which was one Mahabir Prasad Singh. The genealogical table appended (see next page) states the relation, ship between some of the partijes to the suit as found by the learned Subordinate Judge. It appears that Mahabir was the son of one Bachu Singh. Mahabir died on 21-6-1894 leaving him surviving two widows, namely Bhagwat Kuer and Eupkali Kuer, and what has been held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee Bhagwat Koer V/s. Dhanukdhari Prasad Singh A.I.R (1919) . P.C. 75 a vented remainder in favour of a posthumous dakx gb-ter Eamdulari who died about six months after birth. Eamdulari Kuer, the posthumous daughter, died in 1894 and Eupkali died in 1899 and Bhagwat Kuer a cowidow survived till 1925. On the death of Rupkali, Bhagwat came into possession of the whole estate including the vested remainder of Eamdulari. On Bhagwat's death in 1925 the succession opened and disputes arose with regard to the properties.

(2.) Of the suits brought suit No. 38 of 1932 out of which Appeal No. 69 of 1935 arises, raised all the questions in dispute. But as an order was made on 21st January 1927 attaching the properties in dispute and some of the parties succeeded in obtaining the registration of their names in the land registration department as regards some of the other properties, the various claims were made and six suits in all were brought. In addition to the attachment to which I have referred, defendant 1 in the principal suit got his name recorded as mutwalli of some of the properties which had been dedicated to an idol by Bachu Singh, the father of Mahabir Singh, and also as regards properties dedicated for religious and charitable purposes by Bhagwat. Defendant 8, the daughter of Dhanukdhari Prasad Singh, one of the persons through whom the claim of defendant 1 of the principal action was made, got her name recorded with regard to the properties situate in the Saran District. This was in 1926. The parties therefore deemed it necessary to start the various suits.

(3.) Some of the parties to these suits do not appear in the genealogical table. They come into the litigation by reason of assignments or other transactions to which reference is made hereafter. Many questions have been decided during the course of this litigation, but after the decision of the Subordinate Judge in the Court below, whose decision on questions of fact is not disputed in this Court, the main question involved in these appeals is the right to succeed to the stridhan of Eamdulari Kuer. The other questions are, first as to the validity of certain endowments by Bachu and his daughter-in-law Dulhin Bhagwat Kuer and secondly the right to the office of mutwalli in respect thereof. The learned Judge has held that the three brothers Srikishun, Bachu and Jugal Kishore were separate. He has held that the Lakhaipur mukarrari estate was a grafot to Bachu Singh alone and to his brothers. He has held that the transactions carried out by the documents of 8th, 9 and 10 January 1921, by which Dulhin Bhagwat Kuer claimed to have obtained an absolute estate in the property were invalid.