MT BHAGWATI Vs. MT RAM KALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and the defendant in this appeal are the widows of two brothers, the appellant of Sagar Mal and the respondent of Kirpa Ram. The brothers were the sons of Janki Kuar, who died in 1918 and the title under which the property was held by the brothers is in dispute. Kirpa Ram died on 10 March 1924, leaving the respondent as his widow. Sagar Mal died on 18 March 1924, leaving the appellant as his widow. If the property which prior to their death was admittedly enjoyed by both the brothers was held as joint family property, the appellant as widow of the last survivor would be entitled to the estate. If on the other hand as was claimed by the respondent, the property was held by the brothers as tenants in common it would pass to the two widows in equal shares.

(2.) The appellant asserted that the property was joint family property and by Hindu law the whole passed to her. The respondent on her part maintained that the property was held by the brothers as tenants in common and that half devolved upon her. She further alleged that even if this were not so, by a family arrangement made after the death of the two brothers, it was agreed that the parties should enter into possession of the shares of their respective husbands. In support of these allegations she relied upon the facts which were admitted that the property was entered in the revenue records in the joint names of the appellant and respondent and that though the appellant was recorded as lambardar of the property in the town of Bulandshahr, including the property in dispute, the respondent was recorded as lambardar of other portions of the property. Whatever may have been the arrangement between the parties they appear to have quarrelled before October 1925, and by that date a dispute as to their rights in the property had already arisen and extended to their servants to such an extent that criminal proceedings were taken by one of the employees of the respondent against certain employees of the appellant, proceedings which ended in the conviction of the appellant's servants on 5 February 1926.

(3.) Meanwhile, on 18 December 1925, certain property in the town of Bulandshahr was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A portion of this property formed part of the estate the ownership of which is in dispute in the present action. During the year 1926, the dispute between the parties continued and extended and on 13 September 1926 the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the First Munsif for rent against certain tenants of the disputed property. In this suit the respondent was joined as defendant and in it the appellant claimed the whole of the rent. The tenancy in question was in inspect of land in the town of Bulandshahr. While this suit was proceeding and while the acquisition proceedings were still in progress, the appellant petitioned the Collector in the latter proceedings on 19th February 1927 that the whole compensation money should be paid to her to the exclusion of the respondent. In the same month, namely on the 26th, the First Munsif gave judgment in the tenancy suit in which he held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were entitled to anything and dismissed the suit with costs.