CHANDRIKA BAKHSH SINGH Vs. INDAR BIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 25th of May, 1911, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a decree, dated the 3rd of January, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Bara Banki and dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated. The dispute relates to the appellant s title to an Oudh taluqa, known as Mahgawan, which was an impartible estate. The parties are Hindus, subject to the law of the Mitakshara. On the 13th of December, 1904, Babuain Maharaj Rani, who held Mahgawan for a Hindu widow s interest, made, by a deed of gift, an absolute transfer of Mahgawan to the appellant, and he obtained possession. To that transfer Mahabir Singh and his younger brother, Bechu Singh, were consenting parties. At the time of the transfer Mahabir Singh was the heir to Mahgawan expectant on the death of Babuain Maharaj Rani, and the appellant is his only son. Upon the transfer to him the appellant applied to the Revenue authorities for mutation of names in his favour. On the 9th of January 1905, the respondent, who was not a member of the family which had held Mahgawan, tiled objections to mutation of names being made in the appellant s favour, alleging that Babuain Maharaj Rani had no power to transfer the estate, and claiming title to it in himself under an alleged will of 1866, of Babu Pirthipal Singh, who had been the husband of Babuain Maharaj Rani. In consequence of the respondent s objection, the Revenue authorities on appeal rejected the appellant s application for mutation of names, and the appellant, in order to clear his title and obtain mutation of names, was compelled to bring his suit. He brought this suit on the 11th of December, 1908, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bara Banki, for a declaration of his title as proprietor of Mahgawan.

(3.) To the suit the respondent, and Babuain Maharaj Rani, Mahabir Singh, and Bechu Singh were made defendants. By their written statements Babuain Maharaj Rani, Mahabir Singh, and Bechu Singh admitted the appellant s title, and Mahabir Singh and Bechu Singh expressly alleged that it was with their consent that Babuain Maharaj Rani had executed the deed of gift of the 13Lh of December, 1904, and that they had on the 9th of November, 1908, executed deeds of relinquishment in favour of the appellant, who was in proprietary possession of the taluqa.