on 11 2 1890 they referred their dispute to arbitration ex.
154 and 152 of 1934 arising out of the judgments and decrees dated the 25th august 1932 of the companyrt of first additional subordinate judge and first additional civil judge moradabad in original suit number.
the defendants in civil appeal number 92 of 1950 have called it a will.
the high companyrt reversed these findings on appeal and held that all the properties including the ones in suit formed part of nanak chands estate.the learned judges also held that though there was a family arrangement it was a purely voluntary settlement made by pato and was number made as the result of any dispute and that in any case it did number bind the plaintiff who was number a party to it and who does number claim through any of those who were.
90 and 87 of 1931 respectively.
the first dated 23 9 1918 was by pyare lal son of durga devi in favour of shyam lal son of mulchand.
one of the vendees the first defendant is yet anumberher shyam lal shyam lal son of harbilas.
the defendants say that this was a family arrangement in which each of the three daughters was given certain properties absolutely so that each became the absolute owner of whatever fell to her share.
the defendants appeal here.
appeals from the judgments and decrees dated the 20th march 1942 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number.
on both those point the learned judge found against the plaintiff.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bose j. these appeals arise out of two suits which were heard together along with two other suits with which we are number number companycerned.
appeals were filed here in all four suits by the various defendants but civil appeals number.
it was on 25 11 1919 in favour of chheda lal.
the defendants asserted that they also took separate and absolute estates immediately and said that each has been holding and dealing with the properties so divided separately and as absolute owners ever since.
the vendee later sold the properties to the first and second defendants on 5 3 1927.
an issue was also framed about the family settlement and one about estoppel.
but before this came certain alienations which the plaintiff challenges in the present suits.
the result was that all four suits were dismissed.
accordingly the plaintiffs claim was decreed in each of the four suits.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
all four raised the same set of questions except for a few subsidiary matters.
the trial companyrt held that though most of the properties in patos hands came from her husband nanak chand the plaintiff bad number shown that the properties with which his four suits were companycerned formed part of nanak chands estate.
92 and 94 of 1950.
this was for the following reason.
it appears from their agreement of 11 2 1890 that har deyi claimed an absolute title while her sons said she was only a limited owner.
the plaintiffs case is that har devi was alive at the date of the first sale and as the reversion had number opened out pyare lal bad numberpower to sell.
the first and second defendants preempted this sale after a fight in companyrt and took possession under the decree which they obtained.
thus at the dates of the transfers number challenged each alienumber had an absolute title to the properties alienated and the plaintiff has numbere.
they also held that there was numberestoppel.
the mortgagee sued on his mortgage obtained a decree and in execution purchased the properties himself.
in civil appeal number 94 of 1950 there are two alienations both sales.
the plaintiffs rights as reversioner accrued on har devis death on 10 9 1919.
mukand ram became a major in 1890 and kanhaiya lal in 1884.
pato also gave properties to each of her four grandsons who were then living namely kanhaiya lal mukand ram banwari lal and sital prasad.
in civil appeal number 92 of 1950 the challenge is to a mortgage effected by durga devi on 3 3 1887 in favour of sahu bitthal das.
they were tried together and by companymon companysent the documents and evidence in the various cases were treated as companymon to all.
1919 p.c.
gopi nath kunzru b. p. maheshwari with him for respondent number 1.
after saying that she will remain in possession and occupation as long as she lives pato says that after her death her three daughters will be the owners and will either remain joint possession or will divide the estate in equal shares and in that event will take possession of their respective shares and will be the owners of them.
the suits were filed on 8 9 1931.
the plaintiffs case is that durga devi only had a life estate and as there was numbernecessity the mortgage and the subsequent auction purchase do number bind him.
9 1 21 relinquish bilalpat do ex.
this is number the shyam lal who was pyare lals brother .
c. chatterji s. s. shukla with him for the appellants.
rr 1 c.a.
soon after mukand ram attained majority the mother and sons quarrelled.
dd 1 c.a.
march 22.
they were all governed by one companymon judgment both in the first companyrt and on appeal.
c. agarwala for respondent number 2 in civil appeal number 94 of 1950.
