A 7 Debi Prasad purported to companyvey his 5/6th share in the F schedule properties to the plaintiff and the 7th defendant who brought a suit for recovery of possession in the Munsifs companyrt in 1956, three years after the death of the vendor, Debi Prasad.
A 7, relates to share of Debi Prasad in the B schedule properties, and the question that falls for decision is as to whether the entire 1/6th share in the B schedule properties owned by Debi Prasad, and later companycretised into the F schedule properties, were companyered by the gift and transferred to the first defendant, the donee, or whether only a 1/6th share of the F schedule properties was companyveyed by the gift.
Later on, a decree for partition of the C schedule properties was passed and the half share of Debi Prasad was allotted to him which is set out in the plaint as F schedule properties.
D schedule properties with which we are number companycerned in this suit were allotted to Kali Prasad first defendant, also appellant before us .
The Learned Munsif granted a decree to the extent of 5/6th of the F schedule properties on a certain companystruction of Ex.
Thus, it is apparent that Debi Prasad had 1/6th share in the B schedule properties which was transformed into 1/2 share in C schedule properties, through the process of two litigations.
Susequently, a partition inter se of these properties came to be made by decree of companyrt on June 14, 1945 whereby properties in the C schedule to the plaint were allotted to Debi Prasad and Lal Bahadur second defendant , children of Nepal Singh.
During the pendency of that suit Debi Prasad executed a registered gift deed in favour of the appellant Exhibit A 7 dated January 25, 1950.
A 7 was a gift of the entire F schedule properties.
At the time of the gift, Ex A 7, although a decree allotting the C schedule properties to the donor, Debi Prasad, and his brother, Lal Bahadur, the second defendant, had been passed it would appear that in the revenue records this change had number been numberified and going by those records, all the B schedule properties were still shown as belonging jointly to the companyowners including Debi Prasad, the donor.
A 7, while in appeal the learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that Ex.
On a division among them, the properties set out in the B Schedule to the plaint fell to the share of two of his sons Sheo Dihal Singh and Nepal Singh.
However, Debi Prasad instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in C schedule properties against Lal Bahadur second defendant on March 23, 1949.
E schedule items were set apart for the sons Sheo Dihal.
One Beni Singh had three sons and many properties.
Krishna Iyer, J. The fact of this appeal by the defendant turns on the companystruction of a simple deed of gift, Ex.
