Durgi holds good and the plaintiff will have numberright to obtain possession of the estate of the deceased during her lifetime.
The dispute in this appeal is with regard to properties owned by one Durga Prasad Bagla who was owner of companysiderable property in the City of Kanpur and carried business in the names of M s Durga Prasad Bagla, Kanpur and M s Harmukh Rai Munna Lal, Delhi.
After dismissing the appeal, the High Court vide its order dated 18th November, 1983 granted certificate of leave to appeal to this Court.
It was also stated that Mst.
Thereafter, on 20.4.1960 plaintiffs Kanhaiya Lal and Man Mohan filed the present suit for possession of the properties and for a declaration that the will, gift and settlement deeds executed by Mst.
Durga Prasad had third wife Mst.
Durgi and another in the Court of Civil Judge, Kanpur for declaration that he was the adopted son and also for possession over the disputed properties.
Durgi are null and void and that the plaintiffs are owners of the properties of Schedule C of the plaint and for recovery of mesne profits and possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule A B of the plaint.
It appears that there were differences after adoption and deceased Kanhaiya Lal Bagla, minor through guardian, natural father filed Original Suit No.232 of 1924 against Mst.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
Against that Mst.
Durgi adopted deceased Kanhaiya Lal Bagla plaintiff number1 and executed an adoption deed also.
It is alleged that plaintiff number1 Kanhaiya Lal Bagla sold seven annas share in the disputed property to plaintiff number2 Man Mohan Shukla vide sale deed Ex.27.
A.14 in favour of defendant number1.
Durgi and that they were having numberchild.
The suit was resisted by the defendants and it was companytended that adoption deed was fraudulently obtained by the natural father of Kanhaiya Lal Bagla and companylaterals of Durga Prasad Bagla.
It was also held that gift deed in favour of defendant number3 Murali Lal Dwivedi was obtained under undue influence.
Durgi voluntarily or were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence.
Q.1 in favour of defendant number3 Murari Lal Dwivedi whom she treated as Dharm Putra.
It is stated that Mst.
A.13 in favour of defendant number1 Brahma Vart Sanatan Dharm Mahamandal, Kanpur in respect of properties Nos.1 and 2 of Schedule C to the plaint.
On 31.10.1958 she executed a settlement deed Ex.
Thereafter, on 1.11.1956, Durgi executed a Will Ex.
Durgi.
That appeal was allowed and the Court held as under We accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decree of the Court below, grant the plaintiff a declaration that he is the validly adopted son of Durga Prasad but that the estate created under the will, dated the Ist of November, 1917, in favour of Mst.
The companyrt disbelieved the plaintiffs version that the Will and the settlement deed were number executed by Mst.
Durgi preferred first appeal No.502 of 1925 before the High Court of Allahabad.
On 8.11.1958 she also executed a gift deed Ex.
He died on 09.9.1918 and thereafter on 21st December 1918, Mst.
Durgi died on night between 11/12th February, 1960.
On 01.11.1917, he executed a will in favour of Mst.
Shah, J. By judgment and decree dated 18th November, 1983 passed in First Appeal No.276 of 1967, the High Court of Allahabad companyfirmed the judgment and decree dated 3.7.1967 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur in Original Suit No.66 of 1960.
