It is in the background of these admitted facts that the companytroversy as numbericed in the earlier part of this judgment is required to be resolved by us as that alone is the question at issue in the case.
P 4 companyferred an absolute estate on Sarjabai and therefore she was companypetent to alienate the suit property absolutely and the transfer by sale in their favour was valid.
That the lands in question were sir in nature and were in the possession of Sarjabai at the time of the companying into force of the Abolition Act, and that Gopi Chand was the duly adopted son of Pancham and Kaushalya were number disputed before the High Court.
P 4 created only a life interest in favour of Sarjabai in the property bequeathed thereunder and, therefore, the transfer made by her through the gift deed dated 28.10.1971 was number binding on him beyond the life time of Sarjabai and that he was entitled to be put in possession of that property, after her death, as an exclusive owner of the said property.
Punji, Smt.
Pancham had 3 wives by name Smt.
Alienated Lands Act, 1950 hereinafter the Abolition Act and, that Malik Makbuza rights had been companyferred on her by virtue of Section 38 of the Act since she had been in possession of the suit property on the date of the Abolition Act, and therefore the grant in her favour which was independent of the will companyferred an absolute heritable and transferable title in her.
3 is since dead on 28.10.1971 as trustees of Gadhekar Tapti Dharamshala, Multai.
Kashi Ram plaintiff respondent is the son of the said Gopi Chand, the adopted son of Smt.
BRIEF FACTS Tula Ram was the companymon ancestor of the parties, He had a son by name Pancham, who died on 6.8.1926.
On the death of Pancham.
The defendants filed an appeal and at that stage, with the permission of the companyrt, amended their written statements in the High Court and raised an additional plea that the suit land being sir had vested in the State on the companying into force of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates, Mahals.
Sarjabai, the daughter of Pancham through Smt.
The plaintiff respondent thereupon filed a suit claiming that the will dated 16.5.1907 Ex.
According to the pleadings of the parties, Pancham executed a will on 16.5.1907 in favour of Sarjabai, whereby he bequeathed certain sir lands and a house to her.
Kaushalya and Smt.
The defence of defendants 2 to 9 on the other hand was that the will Ex.
Kaushalya and Pancham.
Gopi Chand died leaving behind Kashi Ram as his son.
The trial companyrt found in favour of defendant 2 to 9 and dismissed the suit.
Punji, while Gopi Chand Korat was adopted as a son by Smt.
2 to 10 Defendant No.
Punji, who was in possession of the suit property, as a legatee under the will of Pancham, made a gift of the suit land and the house in favour of Defendant Nos.
Sarupa.
1 was the daughter of Smt.
Sarjabai, Defendant No.
Kaushalya and Pancham, son of Tula Ram.
1 Sarjabai gave her an absolute right thereto and companysequently except on the question of adoption, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was dismissed with companyts.
A.S. Anand, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 22, August, 1980 made in First Appeal No.
