Malik, C.J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed on behalf of the Defendants.
(2.) A short pedigree will help in understanding the facts of this case. Drigbijai Singh = Gajraj Kuer _______|______________________________________ Mst. Ram | | Piari Saraswati Shanker Bakhsh Devi Singh | = Mahipal Singh Natha Singh | | Jagdamba Baksh Singh =Mst. Jagrani Anrudh Singh Drigbijai Singh on the 13th May, 1934, executed a will as regards the property described in list A attached to the plaint. Under this will, Jagdamba Bakhsh Singh, daughter's son of Drigbijai Singh was to be the legatee. On the 22nd December, 1932, Drigbijai Singh made a gift of the property in list B to the same Jagdamba Bakhsh Singh. After the execution of the deed gift, Natha Singh filed a suit No. 11 of 1936 in the court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow, on the allegation that Drigbijai Singh had been wrongly claiming the entire property detailed in the plaint as his self acquired property. That the property was in fact joint ancestral property of the joint family consisting of Drigbija Singh, Shanker Bakhsh Singh and Natha Singh, who were all coparceners, that Drigbijai Singh had without any right made a gift of the properties in list B to Defendant No. 3, Jagdamba Bakhsh Singh on the 22nd of December, 1952, and that Jagdamba Bakhsh Singh had, therefore, no right to retain possession of those properties. The relief claimed in the plaint were that it be declared that the entire property detailed in the plaint in list A was joint ancestral property of the Plaintiff Natha Singh and of Drigbijai Singh and Shankar Bakhsh Singh and that the Defendant No. 3 be dispossessed of the property given to him under the deed of gift and the possession of the property be restored to the Joint family. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The Plaintiff filed a First Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1937 in the Chief Court. During the pendency of the First Appeal Drigbijai Singh died on the 6th of May, 1939. On the 26th of July, 1939, the parties entered into a compromise. The compromise was to the effect that Thakur Drigbijai Singh, Respondent No. 1 had died on the 6th of May, 1939, leaving the Plaintiff -Appellant, Natha Singh and Respondent No. 2, Thakur Shankar Bakhsh Singh as his heirs. That Respondent No. 3, Thakur Jagdamba Singh was claiming that the properties mentioned in lists A, B, & C. of the compromise had been alienated by Thakur Drigbijai Singh in his lifetime under certain transfers mentioned in the compromise. It was then set out that the Plaintiff's case was that the entire property was joint family property and the alienations were all void and that "to save the parties from expense in protracted litigation, the parties have settled the dispute and entered into the following arrangements".
(3.) THE arrangement briefly was that Thakur Jagdamba Bakhsh Singh was given the property mentioned in list A of the compromise. We are told that this is the property that was included in the deed of gift dated the 22nd of December, 1932. Jagrani, wife of Jagdamba Bakhsh Singh, was made the absolute owner of the property in list B of the compromise and their son Thakur Anrudh Singh was given the property in list C of the compromise. Paragraph B of the compromise then provided that the Plaintiff Appellant, that is Natha Singh, and the Respondent No. 2, Shanker Bakhsh Singh "shall own and possess the rest of the property in suit." Thakur Natha Singh and Shanker Bakhsh Singh were made responsible for the debts of Drigbijai Singh and the parties were made liable for their own costs in both the courts.;