- (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for cancellation of an instrument (Ex. 10) executed on the 16th Sept. 1965 by Smt. Jethi, widow of Barjor Singh, defendant-respondent No. 2, in favour of Subedar Singh, defendant-respondent No. 1. relinquishing or surrendering her shebaiti rights in respect of the deity of Sri Thakur Ram Laxman Janki Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Mauza Ninaoli, Pargana Va Zila Jalaun and the property endowed to the said deity in favour of Subedar Singh who was her son-in-law and his heirs generation after generation. The original endowment was created by Jagat Singh and Sengaranju who was the widow of Sher Singh son of Mulu Singh, the latter being Jagat Singh's brother. Jethi's husband Barjor Singh was also a brother of Jagat Singh and Mulu Sigh. The plaintiffs claimed to be collaterals of the three brothers, and, according to the pedigree given in the plaint, they are seven degrees down below the common ancestor Ajab Singh.
(2.) THE instrument (Ext. 10) was sought to be cancelled on the ground that under the deed of endowment Jagat Singh and Sengaranju were to be the joint shebaits during their lifetime and after them their legal heirs were to be shebaits generation after generation. It appears that Sengaranju survived Jagat Singh, and, on her death, sometime in the year 1951, the shebaiti rights devolved on her mother-in-law Smt. Lohri who was the widow of Mulu Singh, and Lohri had died in December, 1964. THEy devolved on Jethi defendant-respondent No. 2. One of the main points in dispute at the trial was whether the plaintiffs were the nearest heirs of Jethi in respect of the shebaiti rights, and the trial court held, on that issue, that the nearest heirs of Jethi are the sons of her deceased daughter Sarwati, and that the plaintiffs are, therefore, not the nearest heirs of Jethi in respect of the shebaiti rights. Having so held, the trial court held, that, although the instrument (Ext. 10) was not valid; inasmuch as Shebaiti rights could not be conferred by Jethi on her son-in-law Subedar Singh, yet the plaintiffs had no right to sue and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court confirmed the said finding and maintained the dismissal of the suit.
(3.) HAVING heard Dr. R. Dwivedi for the plaintiff-appellants, I find that the view of the two courts below that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff-appellants on the finding that they were not the nearest heirs of Jethi in respect of the Shebaiti rights is impeccable. Shebaiti rights are in the nature of property rights and distinct from the endowment itself. Only a person entitled to those rights could file a suit for declaration of the invalidity of the deed. The plaintiffs are seven degrees away from the common ancestor and Jethi has her two daughters' sons alive who are, to use the language of old Hindu Law, the next presumptive reversioners of Jethi, and, according to the Hindu Succession Act, are her presumptive heirs. So long as they are alive, no one else could have any right in the Shebaiti rights after Jethi and if they are not aggrieved by the surrender of the Shebaiti rights by their maternal grand-mother to their father, nobody else could be said to be aggrieved by the same. The appeal fails and is dismissed; but, in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs in this Court. Appeal dismissed. .;