D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the concurrent decision of the Courts below decreeing the Plaintiffs' suit.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal it will be proper to state the facts in some detail. Dalipa was the last male holder of the land in dispute. On his death his widow Uttam Devi succeeded. Uttam Devi gifted the estate inherited by her from her husband on 18 -2 -1938 to Daulat Singh and Charna. The reversioners of the husband some of whom are present Plaintiffs and the others are Defendants 7 to 14 brought a suit for the usual declaration that the land which Uttam Devi had gifted was ancestral qua them and the gift being by a limited owner would not affect their reversionary rights after the death of the widow. This suit was decreed and the declaration prayed for was granted. After the declaratory decree, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into force. On 3 -6 -1959 Daulat Singh made a gift of the property received by him from Uttam Devi to her. The possession of the property was also delivered to her. After Uttam Devi had got back half of the property gifted by her in 1938, she sold it to Defendants 5 and 6 and on 29 -10 -1959 she died.
(3.) THE present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs, who are some of the collaterals of the last male holder, for possession of the entire land which formed the subject -matter of 1938 gift. The suit was contested by the transferees, Defendants 5 and 6 and the dispute in the Courts below really related to one half of the gifted property which had been returned by one of the donees of 1938 i.e., Daulat Singh to the donor Uttam Devi. They pleaded that Uttam Devi came into possession of the property by reason of the gift dated 3 -6 -1959 made by Daulat Singh and she being in lawful possession of the same had become its absolute owner by reason of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. She could therefore sell the property and the reversioners of her husband could not in the circumstances take any benefit of the declaratory decree qua this part of the property. It is significant that in the present suit this gift by Daulat Singh to the widow on 3 -6 -1959 is not challenged. The suit proceeds on the assumption that there was a valid gift by Daulat Singh to the widow. What was challenged was that Daulat Singh had no right to make a gift to her. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the Plaintiffs and Defendants Nos. 8 to 14 are the collaterals of Dalipa deceased? (2) Whether Mst. Uttam Devi was the absolute owner of one half of the property in suit and as such she was competent to alienate half of the suit, property in favour of the Defendants Nos. 5 and 6? (3) Whether the suit is liable to be slaved? (4) Relief. These issues were found in favour of the Plaintiffs with the result that the suit was decreed. An appeal against the decision met with no success. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Defendant -vendees have come in second appeal to this Court.;