(1.) This second appeal by Smts. Sumitra and Kagdu is directed against a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Mandi and Chamba districts whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents against a judgment and decree of the learned additional Subordinate Judge Mandi dismissing the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted.
(2.) Respondent No. 1 was the daughter and respondent No. 2 was the widow of Panjku. Respondent No. 2 executed a deed of gift dated 7-2-1956 in favour of respondent No. 1 and the appellants in respect of the property set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaint in equal shares. Respondent No. 1 alleged that her father was the last male-holder of the disputed property and respondent No. 2 had merely limited rights therein and was not competent to make a gift in respect of it, that the appellants were her illegitimate daughters and on the aforesaid allegations she filed the suit for a declaration that the aforesaid deed of gift was void and ineffective against her reversionary interest and could not enure beyond the life time of the donor. Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 were impleaded as pro forma defendants.
(3.) Respondent No. 5 was the husband of appellant No. 2 and he, the appellants and respondent No. 2 contested the suit upon the grounds that respondent No. 1 was not the daughter of Panjku, that Panjku was not the last male-holder of the disputed property, that the appellants were the legitimate offsprings of respondent No. 2, that the gift had been given effect to and the appellants were in possession of the donated property and that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to maintain the suit. It was also pleaded that the appellants had acquired an absolute estate by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.