P.N.SHINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by defendant Smt. Chandra Mani against the appellate judgment of District Judge, Jodhpur, dated April 30, 1962, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs -respondents for possession of the suit house and declaring the 'patta' and the gift -deed as inoperative.
(2.) THE house in question admittedly belonged to Roopram. The plaintiff's therefore traced the genealogy from him in order to show that while they were the descendants of Shivrup, Prabhushanker was the descendent of Shambhuram, Prabushanker used to reside in the suit house when he died issueless on Jeth sud 7, Section 2000. The plaintiffs claimed to be his only heirs. Mangilal, who was the sole defendant in the suit (as instituted on November 8, 1948) used to reside in the house from the life -time of Prabhushanker. The plaintiffs asked him to vacate the house, but he refused to do so inspite of notice, on the plea that it had been gifted to him by Prabhushanker by gift -deed Ex. A. 3 dated May 21, 1938 and he had obtained a 'patta' on that basis. The plaintiffs however challenged the gift -deed as illegal and void on the grounds that it was made for valuable consideration and was a grant, in charity, from the Rule so that it was inalienable, Defendant Mangilal denied the claim altogether, except that he admitted the genealogical table showing the relationship of Mangilal and Prabhushanker. He pleaded that the suit house fell to the share of Prabhushanker and was in his possession. He denied that it was received in charity and pleaded that Prabhushanker was its absolute owner and lived in it until his death. He denied the right of the plaintiffs to the suit house and claimed that he had been living in it for a period of more than 20 years. He also pleaded that the plaintiffs were aware of the earlier will, the gift -deed and they did not raise any objection so that they were estopped from challenging them now. He pleaded further that Prabhushanker was satisfied with the services rendered by him and delivered possession of the suit house to him during his life -time. Then he pleaded that he made made additions, and alterations repairs in the house during the life -time of Prabhushanker and thereafter, resulting in an expenditure of Rs. 815/1/6 and the plaintiffs were estopped from raising the suit for the further reason that they did not make any objection at that time. A plea was also taken that the suit was barred by limitation. Further, the defendant pleaded that he served Prabhushanker during his illness, and spent money after his death in connection with the funeral and other ceremonies, so that, including the expenditure on the repairs of the house, he had spent Rs. 8,111/8/6 which were a charge on the house.
(3.) EIGHT issues were framed in the trial court to cover the points in controversy between, the parties. Defendant Mangilal died during the course of the trial and his daughter Smt. Chandramani, the present appellant, was brought on the record as his legal representative.;