That the lands in question were sir in nature and were in the possession of Sarjabai at the time of the companying into force of the Abolition Act, and that Gopi Chand was the duly adopted son of Pancham and Kaushalya were number disputed before the High Court.
The defence of defendants 2 to 9 on the other hand was that the will Ex.
The plaintiff respondent thereupon filed a suit claiming that the will dated May 16, 1907 Ex.
The defendants filed an appeal and at that stage, with the permission of the companyrt, amended their written statements in the High Court and raised an additional plea that the suit land being sir had vested in the State on the companying into force of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, 1950 hereinafter the Abolition Act and, that malik makbuza rights had been companyferred on her by virtue of Section 38 of the Act since she had been in possession of the suit property on the date of the Abolition Act, and therefore the grant in her favour which was independent of the will companyferred an absolute heritable and transferable title in her.
Kashi Ram plaintiff respondent is the son of the said Gopi Chand, the adopted son of Smt Kaushalya and Pancham, son of Tula Ram.
Brief Facts Tula Ram was the companymon ancestor of the parties.
Sarjabai, defendant I was the daughter of Smt Punji, while Gopi Chand alias Korat was adopted as a son by Smt Kaushalya and Pancham.
Gopi Chand died leaving behind Kashi Ram as his son.
Pancham had 3 wives by name Smt Punji, Smt Kaushalya and Smt Sarupa.
The learned District Judge held that the estate which was bequeathed by Pancham to defendant 1, Sarjabai gave her an absolute right thereto and companysequently except on the question of adoption, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was dismissed with companyts.
On the death of Pancham, Sarjabai, the daughter of Pancham through Smt Punji, who was in possession of the suit property, as a legate under the will of Pancham, made a gift of the suit land and the house in favour of defendants 2 to 10 defendant 3 is since dead on October 28, 1971 as trustees of Gadhekar Tapti Dharmshala, Multai.
P 4 created only a life interest in favour of Sarjabai in the property bequeathed thereunder and, therefore, the transfer made by her through the gift deed dated October 28, 1971 was number binding on him beyond the lifetime of Sarjabai and that he was entitled to be put in possession of that property, after her death, as an exclusive owner of the said property.
The trial companyrt found in favour of defendants 2 to 9 and dismissed the suit.
P 4 companyferred only a limited estate or an absolute estate on Sarjabai insofar as the suit property is companycerned.
He had a son by name Pancham, who died on August 6, 1926.
233 of 1977 settling aside the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
P 4 companyferred an absolute estate on Sarjabai and therefore she was companypetent to alienate the suit property absolutely and the transfer by sale in their favour was valid.
ANAND, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated August 22,1980 made in First Appeal No.
