RAM SARUP SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent appeal by defendant 1, Ram Sarup Singh, and defendant 2, Udit Singh, against the ?decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiffs. At the conclusion of the arguments in this case, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents orally stated that plaintiff 2, Bikaram Singh, had died after the decree of the learned Single Judge, the date of death being 7 November 1938, and complained that his legal representatives had not been brought on the record. We think that the matter should have been the subject of an application in writing if learned Counsel desired to bring it to our notice, but it appears to be sufficient to observe that the legal representatives of Bikaram Singh are apparently his two brothers, plaintiff 1, Mohan Singh, and plaintiff 3, Sat Narain Singh, and as they are already on the record no further steps appear to be required. It is not asserted that these Hindu brothers were separate. The plaintiffs sued as the nearest reversioners of one Kumar Singh and if Bikaram Singh had any sons they would not be his legal representatives as there are the two uncles, plaintiffs 1 and 3, who are nearer reversioners, so they did not require to be brought on the record. The family pedigree is as follows:

(2.) The facts which gave rise to the present suit are as follows : Bhairo Singh died and left a widow Mt. Parewa who held a zamindari share of 1 anna 6 pies and this widow died in 1899. Bhairo Singh was separated from his nephew Kumar Singh and Kumar Singh died as is the finding of the lower Appellate Court about three weeks after the death of Mt. Parewa. Mt. Asumedha, de. lend ant 3, was then entered for the property of Bhairo Singh, 1 anna 6 pies, and she was also entered for a 6 pies zamindari share of her husband Kumar Singh. The immediate cause of the present suit is a deed of gift dated 6 October 1931 executed by Mt. Asumedha in favour of Ram Sarup and Udit, defendants 1 and 2, by which she made a gift of the two shares amounting altogether to 2 annas zamindari share. The plaintiffs sued claiming in paragraph 3 of the plaint that the 2 annas zamindari share was the property left by Kumar Singh and that on the death of Kumar Singh, defendant 3, Mt. Asumedha Kunwar entered into possession of the property as a Hindu widow with a life interest. The plaintiffs therefore asked for a declaratory decree that defendants 1 and 2 are not the sons of the sister of Kumar Singh, deceased, but are the sons of the daughter of Bhairo Singh. This portion of the decree was granted by the trial Court although the defence was that defendants 1 and 2 were sons of the sister of Kumar Singh and therefore the nearest reversioners under the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act. The finding of fact is not now in contest. The other portion of the relief was that there should be a declaration that the deed of relinquishment which purported to be a deed of gift dated 6 October 1931 was null and void against the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs after the death of Mt. Asumedha Kunwar. In regard to this relief the trial Court granted a declaration so far as it concerns the 6 pies zamindari share which has been held by Kumar Singh, and no appeal was taken by the defendants against that decree. The trial Court held that Kumar Singh had not entered into possession at all of the 1 anna 6 pies zamindari share held by Mt. Parewa, widow of Bhairo Singh, and the Court further held that Mt. Asumedha had been entered for this share by mutation in 1899 and that she had held it by adverse possession against the three daughters of Bhairo Singh who were entitled to hold by succession after their mother, and further that she had held it for the period of 18 years after the death of the last surviving daughter of Bhairo Singh and had therefore acquired a title by adverse possession against defendants 1 and 2. The trial Court further held that this adverse possession by Mt. Asumedha acquired for her an absolute title as full owner of the 1 anna 6 pies share of Bhairo Singh and not merely the limited estate of a Hindu widow. The suit was therefore dismissed in regard to this 1 anna 6 pies share.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an appeal in the lower Appellate Court claiming that the adverse possession of Mt. Asumedha Kunwar was that of a Hindu widow and therefore that she had acquired an estate merely of a Hindu widow in the 1 anna 6 pies share originally of Bhairo Singh and that having acquired that estate she was unable to divest herself of it by a deed of gift or relinquish in favour of defendants 1 and 2 although they were the rightful heirs entitled to possess that share. The plaintiffs brought a second appeal in this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court has hold that the title acquired by Mt. Asumedha Kunwar in the 1 anna 6 pies share was only that of a Hindu widow and that she had also acquired the full title by adverse possession to the estate of her husband and that her deed of gift to defendants 1 and 2 was therefore invalid and the claim of the plaintiffs was allowed. Against that decree of the learned Single Judge, this Letters Patent appeal has been brought and the question before us is whether under the circumstances of this case Mt. Asumedha Kunwar acquired adverse possession as a Hindu widow for herself and the full title for the estate of her husband or whether she acquired the full title for herself. No case has been shown to us in which a person acquiring title by adverse possession as a Hindu widow attempted to make a gift of her rights to the rightful heirs and the Courts have never held that she could not divest herself of the rights which she had acquired by adverse possession. The case is therefore somewhat unique in this feature.