alleging inter alia that they are the next two reversioners of the last male holder Ganney, the only son of Method and in that capacity they are entitled to get the property after the death of Jasoda the widow of Method.
3 herein described as Ram Janki Birajman Mandir, Jhansi City Uttar Pradesh , which as stated by learned companynsel appearing for the party is running a Vidya Mandir School on the said property.
The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the question raised may be stated thus One Method was the original owner of the suit property companyprising of a plot of land with four shop rooms Nos.
This appeal filed by the successors of the original plaintiff is directed against the judgement rendered by the High Court of Allahabad on 20th January, 1981 in second appeal No.
6 per annum in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.
As numbered earlier, the trial companyrt as well as the lower appellate companyrt companystrued the document to be a deed of gift.
The trial companyrt held it as a deed of gift which finding was accepted by the first appellate companyrt.
1,5007 one thousand five hundred only with pendente life and future interest at the rate of Rs.
5 and 6 and Munni Lal, appellant No.
The main question for companysideration in the case relates to validity of the alienation of the suit property by Jasoda in favour of Ram Chand Mani Ram in the year 1934.
In the suit the plaintiffs prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property and for mesne profits etc.
The defendants 3,4,5,13 15 were the companytesting defendants in the suit.
5 and there shall be a charge for recovery of the decretal amount against the property in suit in the hands of Shankar Lal, defendant No.
26 29 on it.
A civil litigation initiated in the year 1954 is yet to reach finality.
2064 of 1972 and the companynected case, second appeal No.
The question for companysideration is whether this document is a deed of gift or a sale deed.
2 and 3 or their representatives, who are respectively Ghanshyam Das appellant No.
The decree under appeal is set aside.
1 and Balchand, defendant No.
2 , against the defendants Nos.
17 respondent No.
6, Smt.
In the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own companyts throughout including the companyts in this Court.
Radha Devi and Mohan, respondent Nos.
Instead, there shall be a decree for recovery of Rs.
3, respondent No.
14, who is appellant No.
It may be stated here that defendant No.
