PANDIT LAKSHMI NARAIN MISR Vs. MUSAMMAT SUMARNI KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery 6f possession. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim.

(2.) The property in dispute belonged originally to one Kesri Mai alias Kesri Singh, who admittedly died some time before the Mutiny. On his death he left a widow Musammat Cheno and two daughters Musammat Durga and Musammat Cheno and also a sister's son Baijnath. Before his death Kesri Mai is said to have executed a document, dated the 28 of January 1838, the genuineness of which was challenged by the plaintiffs in the Court below. Both the Courts below, however, have found that this was a genuine document and that finding is a finding of a fact.

(3.) The terms of this document are admittedly very vague and ambiguous, we have had the original read over to us and there can be no doubt that the language of this document is at places ungrammatical and not quite clear. On the whole, however, I do Hot find it possible to differ from the interpretation put on it by the Courts below. What the lower Appellate Court has understood this document to mean is as follows: The testator made a bequest of his property in favour of four persons, his widow, his two daughters and his nephew Baijnath in four equal shares. There was a provision that in case any of the daughters had a son born he would get the property (of the two daughters). In case of there being no son born to the daughters that property would go to the nephew Baijnath and his heirs.