To this suit Maheshwari Bibi and Kadma Kuar and the Court of Wards were made defend.
520 of 1961 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 23, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
In the first of these the present plaintiff was himself the plaintiff while in the second, his broher Hanuman Prasad defendant No.
53 of 1932.
Under the other companypromise the dispute with Gopinath and Kadma Kuar was settled.
Soon after Kadma Kuar entered into possession of the estate of Kanhaiyalal, she applied to the appropriate authority for taking Over possession of management of the property which was in the possession of Kanhaiyalal at the time of his death whereupon the Court of Wards took over its management under s. 10 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 IV of 1912 .
It may be mentioned that Kanhaiyalal and Madho Prasad had a sister by name Mst.
53 of 1932 and 54 of 1932, came to be filed shortly thereafter.
It is necessary to refer to three suits which came to be instituted during the life time of Kadma Kuar, the first of which is 30 of 1932.
She had a son named Gopinath who died in the year 1934 leaving a widow, Girja Nandini, the first defendant to the suit.
Diwan Madan Gopal was one of the two sons of Brij lal and Brijlal was the only son of Deoki Nandan.
The plaintiff is the sixth son of Diwan Madan Gopal.
Deoki Nandan himself was the eider brother of Chunnilal.
It is said by some of the parties that by a will executed by him in the year 1883 he devised his property in favour of Kanhaiyalal and his brother Madho Prasad.
The latter companypromise was entered into in suit No.
After Madho Prasads death Kanhaiyalal entered into possession of the property which had been bequeathed to Madho Prasad by Chunnilal.
Gopinath, Maheshwari Bibi, Kadm.a Kuar and the Court of Wards, were made parties to these suits.
Two other suits, suit No.
It is number disputed that he and his brothers were the next reversioners entitled to succeed to Kanhaiyalals property L P D 5SCI 15 after the death of his mother Kadma Kuar.
Kadma Kuar died on October 14, 1937 and shortly thereafter the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by Ram Charan Das, the appellant.
To that document, amongst other, the appellant, Gopinath and Kadma Kuar were parties.
Maheshwari Bibi, the daughter of Madho Prasad laid a claim to the property which had been bequeathed by Chunnilal on the ground that the two brothers who took these properties under Chunnilals will took them number as joint tenants but as tenants in companymon.
Each of them sought a declaration that Maheshwari Bibi and Gopinath had numberright of any kind in respect of these properties.
6 in the present suit was the plaintiff.
These suits were rounded on the ground among others that Maheshwari Bibi had numberright because Chunnilal companyld number by his will devise the property to her father Madho Prasad and Gopinath had numbere because he was number in fact Kanhaiyalals sisters son.
The claim made by her in this respect was examined by the Court of Wards and upon Kadma Kuar agreeing, the Court of Wards released half of the estate under its management, that is, the share in the property which iS said to have been bequeathed to Madho Prasad.
P. Sinha, E.C. Agarwala, S. Shaukat Hussain and P.C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
This was instituted by Gopinath who claimed to be the next reversioner upon the ground that he being the sisters son of Kanhaiyalal, had become an heir preferential to the present appell .
53 of 1932 and its date was March 31, 1933.
To this suit he joined Girja Nandini Devi, widow of Gopinath as defendant No.
This property companysisted number only of the property which Kanhaiyalal had obtained under the will of Chunnilal but also of the property which had been bequeathed in that will to Madho Prasad and of which Kanhaiyalal had obtained possession during his life time.
His companytention failed both in the trial companyrt as well as in the High Court.
Niren De, Additional SolicitOr General, Yogeshwar Prasad and A.N. Goyal, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JUPRISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
After Kanhaiyalals death Kadma Kuar, his mother, entered into possession of the entire property which was in the possession of Kanhanyalal till his death.
Pyari Bibi.
It is companymon ground that the claims in both these suits were companypromised.
Both of them claimed to be the nearest reversioners upon the ground that the Act of 1929 did number affect their right to the properties left by Kanhajyalal.
The document, Ex.
Under one of the companypromises the dispute with Maheshwari Bibi was settled and we are numberlonger companycerned with that matter.
Y. 13, dated March 31.
392 of 1944.
Mudholkar, J. The substantial question which falls for decision in this appeal iS as tO the legal effect of a deed, EX.
ant and his brothers because of the passing of the Hindu Law of inheritance Amendment Act of 1929.
1 and it is she who is the companytesting respondent before us.
Decrees were drawn up in these suits embodying the terms of each of the companypromises arrived at amongst the parties.
1933 described in the paper book as a deed of partition.,
The property companyered by the deed belonged t9 one Kanhaiyalal who died on June 10, 1922 without leaving a widow or any issue.
Madho Prasad, died during the life time of Kanhaiyalal, leaving a daughter Maheshwari Bibi.
This suit, however, was eventually withdrawn.
This property, along with some other property originally belonged to Kanhaiyalals grandfather Chunnilal.
He sought therein a declaration to the effect that the Court of Wards had numberright to release half the property in favour of Maheshwari Bibi.
