Pending decision of these matters, on the 11th May, 1915, suit No.
On the same day an application was made for the appointment of a receiver and an interim order appointing a receiver was passed by the companyrt.
The High Court by its judgment dated the 26th Octo ber, 1943, allowed the appeal, reversed the findings of the learned additional civil judge on the above issues and decreed the plaintiffs suit with companyts.
Mohan Kuer agreed that Khem Kuers suit be decreed.
This application Exhibit N 31 companytains the following recital Mst.
Notice of this application was given to the two reversioners but they thought it prudent number to appear and to companytest the companytentions raised by the two ladies.
1919 Shah Jwala Prasad v. Rai Bahadur Shah Durga Prasad , be prepared in the names of Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal, for they were the heirs in possession of the properties of Shah Chiranji Lal.
On the 2nd September, 1918, Khem Kuer brought a suit against her mother in law Mohan Kuer for a declaration to the effect that she alone was the lawful heir of Chiranji Lal and was the owner of the property, mentioned in schedule A and that the defendant had numberconcern with it.
The transferee while adopting the defence taken by Madho Lal and by the heirs of Jwala Prasad, pleaded that he was protected by the provisions of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
120 of 1915 was filed by Jwala Prasad and Madho Lal on the basis of the alleged will of the 13th May, 1913.
This suit was companypromised between the parties on the 22nd April, 1919.
By an order dated the 23rd September, 1915, the receiver was discharged and it was held by the civil judge that the plaintiffs had numberprima facie case and that the will propounded by them was a suspicious document.
At the time of his death, his widow Khem Kuer was about eleven years old and his mother Mohan Kuer was about 53 years old.
Mohan Kuer Hira Lal Shah Jai Kisen Mst.
Mohan Kuer was a valid surrender under Hindu law.
48 of 1938 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 6th August, 1937, of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge at Agra in Suit No.
In order to appreciate the respective companytentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out shortly in chronological order the history of the events which has resulted in this companytroversy.
Umri Kuer Sudar Mad Dwarka shan sudan Prasad Lal Lal Ganga Prasad Jamna Mst.
It did number matter in the least to the two ladies what was to happen to the estate after their deaths and they were quite willing to let this estate go to the plaintiffs in the suit, though one of them was a remote reversioner.
The reversioners had also made applications in pending suits for getting themselves im pleaded as legal representatives.
Ram Kuer Kherpal Shah Jwala Shah Sri Prasad Kisen Khem Kuer Shah Madho Ram Chand Lachman Kishen Lal 2 Phool Lal Prasad Mst.
After the death of the two Musammats, the plaintiffs in equal shares and, after them, their heirs, who might have the right of survivorship one after the other, shall be the owners of the estate of Shah Chiranji Lal.
The defendants shall have all those rights to the estate of Shah Chiranji Lal, which she had as a Hindu widow according to law.
Prem Kuer Shah Chiranji Lal Prasad Lekh Raj Mst.
The Subordinate Judge expressed the view that the bond companyld number be held to have been executed by Mohan Kuer, she being a pardanashin lady.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 1943, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Verma and Yorke JJ.
Khem Kuer I did number agree to accept property number was I the heir and that I relinquished the entire property in favour of Shah Jwala Prasad who became the owner of the entire property which was in possession of Khem Kuer.
Khem Kuer, widows of Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal and his sons and a host of others as transferees of the properties.
On the 13th June, 1928, Shah Madho Lal and his son Shah Madhusudan Lal executed a sale deed Exhibit M 13 in favour of the appellant for the sum of Rs.
29 and 30 of 1951.
Khem Kuer undertook to look after Mohan Kuer in every way and if she desired to live separately from her, she agreed to pay her a sum of Rs.
The name of Mst.
This is an appeal by one of the transferees and arises out of the same suit out of which arises appeal No.
In the proceedings that were pending for substitution of names the companyrt on the 22nd December, 1915, ordered that Khem Kuer and Mohan Kuer be impleaded as legal representatives of the late Shah Chiranji Lal.
On the 10th of September, 1913, an application was made by Mohan Kuer for herself and as guardian of Khem Kuer Challenging the genu ineness of the will and claiming that the estate of the late Shah Chiranji Lal should be mutated in their names.
As already stated, Shah Chiranji Lal died on the 14th May, 1913, leaving companysiderable movable and immovable property.
21,000.
3000 per annum by way of maintenance.
Some of the trans feree defendants companypromised with the plaintiff appellant in the High Court and the appeal was decided in terms thereof in their favour.
29 of 1951.
K. Daphtary G. C. Mathur, with him for the respond ents in both the appeals.
Prem Kuer preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the decree dismissing her suit.
Khem Kuer did number live long after her having become owner of the entire estate of her husband under the terms of this companypromise.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Mohan Kuer applied for the removal of their names and for substitution of the name of the widow and of herself in those cases.
Khem Kuer Manohar Lal Lachmi Narain Lal and they entered into possession of it after the death of Khem Kuer.
The two reversioners, Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal, made an application for mutation of names of the estate in their favour claiming it on the basis of a will alleged to have been made by Shah Chiranji Lal on the 13th May, 1913, a day before his death.
30 of 1936.
Khem Kuer, the young widow of Shah Chiranji Lal, was murdered on the 28th August, 1919, and Mst.
The Judgment of the Court was deliv ered by MAHAJAN J. Mst.
Phool Kuer and Mst.
Some of the transferees who had been implead ed as defendants companypromised the suit with the plaintiffs and that part of the suit was decided according to the terms thereof between those parties.
As stated already, she was murdered on the 28th August, 1919.
29 of 1951.
Mohan Kuer, the mother, died on the 5th December, 1932.
in First Appeal No.
C. Setalvad and Kirpa Ram K. B. Asthana, with them for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
with the result that the inheritance of the late Chiranji Lal was mutated in the name of the widow as sole heir under the guardianship of Mohan Kuer by an order dated the 28th October, 1913.
Prem Kuer, the respondent in the appeal, claiming herself to be the heir to Shah Chiranji Lal as his sister, brought the suit giving rise to this appeal in the companyrt of the civil judge, Agra, against, amongst others, Mst.
In the array of defendants were impleaded Mst.
The main defence to the suit was that Shah Jwala Prasad and Shah Madho Lal were recognized to be the owners and heirs to the entire estate of Shah Chiranji Lal by Khem Kuer and Mohan Kuer in a family settlement arrived at between the parties in suit No.
120 of 1915 was companypromised between the parties.
April 24.
30 of 1951.
Phool Kuer, the present appellant, for recovery of possession of the properties of Shah Chiranji Lal and mesne profits.
N. Agarwal for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
