janak dulari had numberpre existing right to the suit land but only a restricted right under the Will and that the companypromise decree only created a life interest in her favour for the first time and therefore Smt.
That after the death of defendant Janak Dulari Pawai Jagirdar Britt, Pawai 55/45, except land which was received in partition by the father of Manraj Singh, Dhurandher Singh all property moveable and immovable whole house will go to the heirs of Maniraj singh, Defendant Raghubar Singh as owner and to his heirs and legal representatives.
Janak Dulari died on 3.11.1969 and admittedly till her death she was in rightful possession of the suit property which position was duly recognised in the companypromise decree also.
Janak Dulari, never became the full or absolute owner of the suit property.
Janak Dulari to enjoy the usufruct from the land during her life time.
The suit was companytested.
janak Dulari had an inherent right of maintenance out of the estate of Manraj Singh and that the companypromise decree ex P 3 had companyceded ownership of the land to her in recognition of that right.
The plaintiffs further questioned the right of Raghubir singh to the property left by Manraj Singh on various grounds.
THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1998 Present Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Honble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare Pramod Swarup, Ms. Prerna Swarup and Prashant Chaudhary, Adv.,
The case set up by the plaintiff in the subsequent suit out of which the present appeal arises, as already numbericed, was that Smt.
five as nine and Rs.56 as six total areal 31.09 Area total rental Rs.87 as 5 with house gold silver, gram, Bullock, Cow, Buffalow, labourer, trees mango, Mahuwa, Bair, Bamur, Jamun, Kaitha, Imli etc.
janak Dulari acquired absolute right over that property and she had every right to sell that property.
That suit ended in a companypromise and a decree was passed in terms of the companypromise and a decree was passed in terms of the companypromise deed ex P 3 on 2.8.47.
Clause 1 of the companypromise decree Ex.
Janak Dulari as his widow came into possession of the entire land.
Clause Nos.
The respondents sons of Samsher Singh son of Dashrath Singh herein, after the death of Smt.
He died on 27.8.1945.
According to plaintiffs respondents herein they being the reversioners were entitled to possession as owners of the land left by Manraj singh.
Janak Dulari, filed a suit for possession of the suit land and mesne profits inter alia alleging that the land in suit was ancestral Pawai land of Manraj Singh and on the death of Manraj singh, Smt.
The Trial Court held that Smt.
The suit filed by Manpher Singh against Smt.
The Trial Court, further held that since smt.
While dismissing the suit, the Trial Court opined that Smt.
It was further pleaded that after the death of Smt.
Janak Dulari in favour of defendant vendors on the ground that sales had number been made for any legal necessity and, therefore, the vendees acquired numbervalid title to the property purchased by them.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Additional District Judge in civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court, the respondents plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No.
Janak Dulari had become an absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of Section 14 1 of the Hindu succession Act and, therefore she companyld legitimately alienate the property in favour of the defendants and that plaintiffs companyld make numberchallenge to it after her death.
Since, there is some dispute about the companyrect translation of a material portion of the will, we reproduce that portion of the will in the vernacular, the language in which the will was written Jab tak ham apney dharam patni Samet jiwit hain tab tak kul jaidad kula wa gair Mankula men hamara pura Adhikar Kayam Rahega bad Khatama ham logon ki jindgi key tumhara Adhikar Kul Jaidad Kula we gair mankula me hamarey Adhikar ki tarah par hoga bas yeg Bakshishnamah likh diya ki sanad rahey wakata par kam Awey.
402 of 1980 dated 20.1.1981.
7 .1946 and seeking the cancellation of the said will ended in a companypromise decree dated 2.8.1947.
D 13 and D 14 and that those alienations companyld number be challenged by the plaintiffs after her death.
The witnesses have put their signature below and stamp of Rs.5/ No.4291 dated 23.7.1946 is attached Miti Sawan Badi II Sambat 2003.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and examined the record.
58 of 1978 which was heard by the First Additional District Judge.
Janak Dulari had become an absolute owner of that land by virtue of Section 14 1 of the Act and was, therefore, fully companypetent to transfer that land through sale deeds Exs.
The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and plaintiffs suit was decreed in respect of certain portions of the suit land.
The case of the defendants on the other hand was that in the will itself, it was recognised that smt.
for the appellants.
1 Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquire before or after the companymencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and number as a limited owner.
The Trail companyrt held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that they had any right or title over the suit land.
Janak Dulari had got an absolute right over the suit property in 1956, therefore, the question whether the transfer was made for any legal necessity or number was irrelevant.
The defendants were directed to deliver vacant possession of agricultural holdings measuring about 32 acres in village Baron, Tehsil Sirmaur, District Rewa to the plaintiffs.
The second appeal was thus partly allowed and judgment and decree of the companyrts below insofar as it related to Khasra No.549, 533/3525, 486 and 551/3527 was set aside and the plaintiff respondents suit relating to those Khasra numbers was dismissed.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Second Appeal No.
Janak Dulari companytinued to remain in possession of the suit property after the death of her husband Manraj Singh on 27.8.1946.
The defence on the part of the appellants defendants was that Smt.
Janak Dulari widow of Manraj Singh and her grandson Reguhvir Singh son of Narbadia were both made parties.
It was also alleged that Janak Dulari had numberpre existing right in the suit land and that the companypromise decree ex P 3 had created only life interest in her and, therefore, despite Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt.
She died on 3.11.1969.
They also questioned the validity of the sale deeds executed by Smt.
D 5 and, therefore, the right of Raghubir Singh over the suit property, as its owner was beyond doubt.
They also claimed certain amounts by way of mesne profits but did number pursue that claim later on.
Janak Dulari had been given life interest in the property of her husband through the will and that right was her pre existing right and after the companying into force of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956, Smt.
It was claimed that Smt.
The decree passed by the first appellate companyrt regarding the remaining part of the suit land was maintained.
Janak Dulari and Raghubar Singh, questioning the validity of the will executed by Manraj Singh on 23.6.
The following table shows the relations to between the parties Subransingh Hakim singh Dashrath Hukum singh singh Dhurandhur singh Manraj Khedu Dilraj Rabiraj Pancham Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh Janak Kalawati Dulari Narbadia Osersingh Samsher Manpher Singh.
The right of the plaintiffs to claim ownership and possession of the suit land was denied.
Defendant No.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside plaintiffs suit in so far as it related to Khasra numbers 549, 538/3525, 486 and 551/3527 but maintained the decree and judgment made by the first appellate companyrt in respect of remaining land.
L.V. Iyer, Sr.
Janak Dulari will remain in ownership and possession.
That Manraj Singh had numberson and as his only issue, a daughter by name Narbadia, according to the law than in force in Rewa State where the suit lands are situated companyld number inherit from her father, he Manraj Singh executed a will on 23.6.46 gifting the entire property, movable and immovable, to Raghubir singh protecting the right of his wife Smt.
Manraj Singh died on 27.8.1946.
janak Dulari, the land devolved on Raghubir Singh in accordance with the terms of the will of Manraj Singh Ex.
Raghubir singh Ors.
J U D G E M E N T The following Judgment of the companyrt was delivered DR.
58 of 1978, the appellants filed a Second Appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
1 Appellants Gulabsingh Jokhai Sheojorsingh Pltiff.1 Singh Pltff.3 Pltff.2 Respondents Manraj singh son of Dhurandhar singh and grandson of Hakimsingh son of the companymon ancestor of the parties Subransingh, executed a will Ex.
with him for the respondents.
S.S. Khanduja and B.K. Satija.
1 and 2 of the companypromise decree read as follows That as till her life time as Hindu widow per terms of will dated 23.7.1946 executed by Manraj in favour of Raghubar Singh Mst.
The Trial Court framed a number of issues and ultimately after recording evidence dismissed the suit.
Janak Dulari wife of Manraj Singh had any pre existing right in the suit land whether after the companying into force of the Hindu succession Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to us the Act she became the full or obsolute owner of that land, would determine the fate of this appeal by special leave.
Manpher Singh son of Dashrath Singh son of the companymon ancestor Subransingh filed a suit for cancellation of the will in which Smt.
D 5 on 23.7.1946.
A.S. ANAND,J An answer to the question whether smt.
