BAI CHAMPA WD O MANEKLAL CHUNILAL Vs. CHANDRAKANT HIRALAL DAHYABHAI SODAGAR
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
BAI CHAMPA MANEKLAL CHUNILAL
CHANDRAKANT HIRALAL DAHYABHAI SODAGAR
Click here to view full judgement.
C.V.RANE, M.U.SHAH -
(1.)This judgment will govern the disposal of the First Appeals Nos. 481 of 1961 and 1112 of 1969 both of which arise out of the judgment and decree dt. 11-1-67 of the learned Judge City Civil Court 5 Court Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 162 of 1964. The facts of the above suit were in brief as under:
Lalbhai Chunilal died in the year 1915 leaving behind him his widow Bai Mukta alias Bai Manek. Lalbhais brother Maneklal died on 16-12-59 leaving behind him his widow Bai Champa son Devendrakumar and two daughters namely (1) Nirmalaben and Bai Suryakanta. Bai Manek also died on 6th of June 1963 During her life time Bai Manek had transferred some of the properties which she had inherited from her husband. Some of the suit properties were sold by Bai Manek to one Jamnadas Harilal on 12th October 1928 Reversionary heirs of Lalbhai Chunilal had filed a suit to set aside the above alienations and a decree was passed in their favour. Bai Manek had bequeathed some of the properties to defendants Nos. 1 & 2 by her will executed on 29th March 1958 and registered on 15-5-58. It was the case of the plaintiffs that on the day on which the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force she was not in possession of the suit properties and hence she continued to have only limited interest as a widow so far as the suit properties were concerned. The plaintiffs therefore filed the above suit to obtain a declaration that as reversioners they were the owners of the suit properties and also for an injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1 2 & 3 from recovering the rent of such of the properties as were in possession of the tenants. They also prayed for possession of the suit properties.
(2.)Suit properties have been divided into four lots. Property at serial No. 1 in lot No. 1 is in possession of tenants. This property is bequeathed to defendant No. 2 under the will dated 29-3-58 by Bai Manek. Property at serial Nos. 2 & 3 in lot No. 1 have also been bequeathed in a similar manner to defendant No. 2. These two properties were formerly sold to Jamnadas Harilal on 12-10-28. Suits filed by reversioners to challenge the above sale were decided in their favour. Properties at serial Nos. 4 to 7 in lot No. 1 were alleged to have been given by way of a gift to defendant No. 1 in the year 1951.
(3.)Lot No. 2 and Lot No. 3 consisted of 5 fields and 2 fields respectively and they were all along in possession of Bai Manek. Lot No. 4 consisted of 12 fields but the plaintiffs had not prayed for any relief in respect of those fields. A reference has also been made to annuity of Rs. 37. 57 in lot No. 4. The annuity was alleged to be a sort of political pension but no evidence was adduced as to the nature of the plaintiffs right to claim any relief in respect of the annuity.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.