A suit was brought by the plaintiffs respondents for a declaration, and in the alternative for possession, in respect of certain properties.
It was prayed that a deed of gift executed on July 31, 1953 by Mst.
C1166 11 Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 22, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
Phuljhari Kuer in favour of the appellant Ramrati Kuer was number binding on the plaintiffsrespondents.
Zira Kuer, Uttim Narains share of the properties also came to Basekhi Singh.
Basudeo Narain had married twice.
It was further companytended by the appellant that Ramruch died before his son.
Further on the death of Mst.
According to the respondents, Basudeo Narain died during the life time of his father sometime about the revisional settlement which took place between 1917 1920.
The other was Mst.
Sakala who died in 1950.
Phuljhari had numberchildren while Mst.
Consequently the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed on October 5, 1953.
Phuljhari Kuer was originally a defendant but died during the pendency of the suit.
M 14 Sup.
It was sometime before the revisional settlement that Ramruch and Basekhi Singh separated and each had half share, though many of the properties still remained joint.
As the judgment was one of reversal, the High Court granted a certificate to the appellant to appeal to this Court and that is how the matter has companyn before us.
On July 31, 1953 however Mst.
The case of the respondents further was that as Basudeo Narain had pre deceased his father, Basekhi Singh inherited the properties of the share of Ramruch and that the two widows and the daughter of Basudeo Narain had numberright to the properties except that they were entitled to maintenance.
Thus at the time of his death, Basudeo Narain left two widows and a daughter.
The case of the respondents was that the companymon ancestor of the parties Ramcharan Singh had three sons, namely, Ramruch, Uttim Narain and Basekhi Singh.
As Basudeo Narain was the only son of Ramruch the latter was greatly grieved on his premature death and he left his home about a month after Basudeo Narains death and thereafter disappeared from the village.
Bishan Narain and U. P. Singh, for the appellant.
There was an appeal to the High Court by the plaintiffs respondents and the High Court allowed the appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
981 of 1964.
Ramruch had a son Basudeo Narain.
Further it was stated that the appellant being the only daughter of Basudeo Narain was his legal heir and was entitled as of right to the entire share of Basudeo Narain after the death of Mst.
223 of 1957.
Zira Kuer but numberchildren, and Mst.
It may be mentioned that Basekhi Singh died in 1948 and the suit was filed by his two sons.
Phuljhari Kuer who executed the gift deed of 1953 which was challenged in the suit.
After the death of Ramcharan Singh, his three sons separated in status though the properties were number divided by metes and bounds.
Sakala had a daughter Ramrati Kuer who is the appellant before us.
The appellant companytested the suit.
Therefore Basudeo Narain succeeded to and came into possession of half of the properties of Ramruchs share and on Basudeo Narains death, his two widows came into possession of the same After the death of Mst.
Uttim Narain died sometime before 1900 leaving a widow Mst.
One of his widows was Mst.
The case of the appellant was that there had been numberseparation during the life time of Uttim Narain and that after the death of Uttim Narain there was a joint family companysisting of Ramruch and Basekhi Singh.
Zira Kuer in her turn died in 1943.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court.
Thus the main case of the plaintiffs respondents was that Basudeo Narain died in the life time of his father and his widows and daughter had numberright to any property in which he might have had a share along with his father Ramrach with whom he was joint and that on the death of Ramruch the entire share of Ramruch was inherited by Basekhi Singh.
Phuljhari Kuer was prevailed upon by the appellants husband to execute a gift deed in favour of Ramrati Kuer, though she had numberright whatsoever to the properties.
Sarjoo Prasad, B. K. Saran, A. B. S. Sinha, S. K. Mehta and L. Mehta for respondent No.
