ISHRI PRASAD SINGH; LALLI JAS KUNWAR Vs. LALLI JAS KUNWAR AND ANR; ISHRI PRASAD SINGH
ISHRI PRASAD SINGH; LALLI JAS KUNWAR
LALLI JAS KUNWAR
Click here to view full judgement.
Arthur Strachey, C J and Banerji, J -
(1.) The plaintiff in this case claiming to be the nearest reversioner to the estate of Thakur Chaturbhuj Singh, deceased, sues for declaratory relief in respect of certain acts done by Thakurain Mahtab Kunwar, widow of Chaturbhuj, by Lalli Jas Kunwar, his daughter, and by the second defendant Thakur Umrao Singh. The acts complained of are: (1) a transfer made about the year 1850 by the widow Mahtab Kunwar of two villages belonging to the Kotla estate left by Chaturbhuj, namely, Ajaibpur Rakhauli and Ahmadpur Madha, in favour of her daughter, the defendant Lalli Jas Kunwar; (2) a transfer made by Lalli Jas Kunwar on the 18 February 1876, during the lifetime of Mahtab Kunwar, of the same two villages, in favour of Mohinder Kunwar, the deceased wife of the second defendant, who is in possession of them by inheritance from her; (3) an entry obtained by Lalli Jas Kunwar after Mahtab Kunwar's death in April 1889, of her name in the revenue records in respect of two other villages of the Kotla estate, namely, Khairgarh and Noner, upon the allegation that they formed part of her stridhan; (4) a denial by the defendants in their written statements filed on the 23 August 1892, in a suit brought by the present plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra, of the plaintiff's title as next reversionary heir of Chaturbhuj to succeed to the Kotla estate as absolute owner after the death of Lalli Jas Kunwar.
(2.) The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are: (1) A declaration that he is the next reversionary heir of Chaturbhuj Singh in respect of the whole Kotla estate. (2) A declaration that the transfer by Mahtab Kunwar in favour of Lalli Jas Kunwar of Ajaibpur Rakhauli and Ahmadpur Madha was void and inoperative as against the plaintiff beyond the life-time of Lalli Jas Kunwar. (3) A declaration that the four villages named in the plaint are not the stridhan of Lalli Jas Kunwar, and that she has no right to make a transfer of them beyond her life-interest.
(3.) The defendants raised various pleas, for the most part of a technical character, and to two of which it is unnecessary to refer. Their main pleas were (1) that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversionary heir of Chaturbhuj Singh, and was therefore not entitled to bring the suit; (2) that, in any event, the first prayer of the plaint for declaration of his reversionary title was not maintainable; (3) that the suit was barred by limitation; and (4) that the four villages named in the plaint formed part of the defendant Lalli Jas Kunwar's stridhan.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.