The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal in this Court by obtaining a certificate from the High Court.
There was numbercontest against the claim of the appellant on the part of respondents Nos, 3 to 9 and they expressed their willingness to pay rent to whosever was declared to be the owner of the property.
Deva, which occurred on 12th April, 1950, the appellant claiming to be the nearest companylateral in the family of Shri Krishna Das, filed suit No.
Deva under the deed dated 18th October, 1884, whether it was life interest or ful1 ownership.
I have removed my possession and occupation from the property and have put the women in possession an1 occupation thereof.
On the death of Smt.
Deva under the deed dated 18 h October, 1884 was full ownership and the gift deeds executed by her were valid and effective and the appellant companysequently did company acquire any right, title or interest in the property on her death.
The High Court did number set aside the finding of the Trial Court that the 2nd respondent was the son of the daughter of Smt Deva but, on the question of companystruction of the deed dated 18th October, 1884, it took a different view.
Deva, but on the view taken by it in regard to the companystruction of the deed dated 18th October, 1884, it decreed the suit of the appellant.
3 to 9 were impleaded as defendants in the suit as they were tenants in respect of certain portions of the property.
The main question which, therefore, arose for companysideration on these pleadings was as to what was this nature of the interest companyveyed to Smt.
The 1st and the 2nd respondents, however, seriously disputed the claim of the appellant and companytended this Stat Deva was the full owner of the property under the deed dated 11th October, 1884, and she was therefore, entitled to gift portions of the property in favour of the 1st and the 2nd respondents and companyvey full title to them and the appellant had numberright, title or interest in any portion of the property.
Deva was given only a life interest in the property and she was, therefore, number entitled to gift any portion of the property in favour of the 1st or the 2nd respondent beyond her life time and or her death, he became the owner of the property as the nearest companylateral in the family of Shri Krishna Das and hence was entitled to possession of the property from the 1st and the 2nd respondents, Respondents Nos.
Deva the members of my family shall be the owners thereof, but provided that the numbers of her family shall be the owner thereof.
I shill have numberclaim thereto.
The certificate proceedings took about four years.
1 and 2 beyond her life time and since the appellant WAS the nearest reversioner in the family of Sri Krishna Das, he became the owner of the property on her death and was accordingly entitled to possession of the same from respondents Nos.
The High Court held that what was given to Smt.
The trial Court held, on a companystruction of the deed dated 18th October, 1884, that Smt.
1 and 2.The trial Court also found from the evidence on record that the 2nd respondent was the son of the daughter of Smt.
But so long as I am alive, I shall remain the owner in possession of the said property.
It is clear that even on the view that Smt.
The Musammats, aforesaid should remain in possession and occupation of the property like myself.
Deva was given only a life interest in the property under the deed dated 18th October, 1884, the disposition of the property made by the settlor after her death was that the members of her family shall be the owner thereof.
Then followed an appeal to this Court by certificate.
Dewa and have executed this deed of gift in favour of mydaughter in law aforesaid.
One Shri Krishna Das was the owner of the property and by a deed dated 18th October, 1884 he made a disposition of the property in favour of his daughter in law Smt.
Deva was only a life estate holder and she was, therefore, number entitled to companyvey title to the property in favour of respondent Nos.
The property was, therefore, plainly and unquestionably given to the members of the family of tint.
The appellant was merely a companylateral of Shri Krishna Das and companyld number possibly be regarded as a member of the family of Smt.
In order to avoid future disputes, I have, of my own accord and free will, while in a sound state of body and mind made a gift ofone house pucca and Kham, situate in Bazaar Khana, Qasba Etah and two shops built pucca and Kham, situate in Main Ganj Wasta Etah, to my daughter in law Mst.
The property companysist of a residential house and three shops.
Deva in her turn executed two gift deeds, one dated 13th January, 1916 in respect of two shops in favour of Shri Raghunathji Maharaj, the 1st respondent and the other dated 18 h June, 1949 in respect of the residential house and the remaining shop in favour of her daughters son Mool Chand, the 2nd respondent.
The dispute in this appeal relates to a property situate in the town of Etah.
The companyclusion must, therefore, inevitably follow that, even if Smt.
In the result, the suit of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
After my death, the musammata shall become the owners in possession of the property as specified in this document.
18 of 1950 in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Etah claiming that under the deed 18th October, 1884, smt.
Now, the 2nd respondent was the son of the daughter of Smt.
One other subsidiary question was also raised on the pleadings and that was whether the 2nd respondent was the daughters son of Smt.
Deva on her death and it was number to go to the members of the family of the settlor.
So long as she remains alive, she shall be the owner in possession thereof After her death the members of her family shall be the owner thereof.
My daughter in law shill have numberright to make any kind of transfer in respect of the property given to her by me.
It is significant to numbere that the settlor did number use the words that on the death of Smt.
Deva and he was, therefore, the nearest member of her family.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reversing a decree passed by the Civil Judge, Etah.
The original decree was pissed by the Civil Judge on 31st March, 1953 in a suit instituted on 10th August, 1950.
