DAULAT KUAR Vs. BISHUNDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Mt. Daulat Kuar and Mt. Besar Kuar, daughters of Jaglal Singh deceased, who was governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, for a declaration that a sale deed dated 20 May 1932, executed by their mother Mt. Sulachan Kuar, defendant 5 in favour of defendants 1 to 4 is not binding on them. Admittedly the last full owner of the disputed property was Ramasre Singh son of Jaglal Singh. The plaintiffs as sisters of Ramasre Singh claimed to be his next reversionary heirs. The suit was contested by defendants 1, 3 and 4 on the grounds inter alia (1) that the plaintiffs were half- sisters of Ramasre Singh and as such could not be his heirs and had therefore no locus standi to bring this suit and (2) that the sale deed was justified by legal necessity.

(2.) The learned Munsif who tried the suit held that legal necessity was not proved for the sale, but he dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiffs were half- sisters of Ramasre Singh and were therefore not his heirs. On appeal to the District Judge this decision has been affirmed. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs. Mt. Dault Kuar having since died, Mt. Besar Kuar is now the sole appellant. Two questions have been raised in this appeal, first, whether the plaintiffs were full sisters of Ramasre Singh as alleged by them; and second, even if they were his half-sisters whether they were his heirs.

(3.) On the first question both the Courts below have found as a fact that the plaintiffs who were admittedly born of the womb of Sulachan Kuar, defendant 5 were half-sisters of Ramasre Singh. This being a finding of fact would be binding in second appeal. But Mr. Khurshaid Husnain for the appellant contends that this finding is vitiated by error of law. In the first place, he argues that in the sale deed in question Sulachan Kuar, the vendor, is described as mother and heir of the deceased Ramasre; so defendants 1 to 4, the vendees, would be estopped from disputing her title and consequently from denying that she was the mother of Ramasre, because her title depended upon her status as mother of Ramasre.