Judgement

APPEAL from a decree of the High Court of the North-Western Provinces (Jan. 23, 1883), reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh (July 15, 1880), which had dismissed the Respondents suit with costs.

The question in the appeal was as to the effect of a certain deed of gift dated the 6th of May, 1878, whereby the first Defendant, Musammat Thakro, purported to transfer to her daughters the other Defendants, mouzah Shahpur Thatvi, the property in suit. Possession followed the deed, and the suit, which was brought by the Respondent, Thakro, the son of Musammat, on the 3rd of May, 1879, was to avoid the deed and obtain possession of the mouzah.

The allegations of the plaint were that Ganesh Singh, the deceased husband of Thakro, and father of the other parties to the suit, had acquired the whole of the said mouzah by mortgage and private and public purchase, partly in his own name and partly in that of Thakro, and subsequently in 1862-3 caused Thakros name to be recorded in respect of the entire property; that the mouzah remained in Ganeshs possession, and after his death was under the management of the Plaintiff; and that on the 6th of May, 1878, Thakro executed a false deed of gift thereof in favour of her two daughters, describing the mouzah as her acquired property and stridhana.

The allegation of the Defendants written statement with regard to the original acquisition of the property was that Ganesh Singh " had given away his entire share in the disputed village to his wife Thakro before the birth of the Plaintiff, and put her in proprietary possession. The Musammat herself purchased the remainder, and thus under these two different titles she has been in possession of the entire village as proprietor for more than twelve years."

The finding of the Subordinate Judge was as follows—

" A careful consideration of all the oral and documentary evidence, and presumptions and probabilities, clearly leads the Court to infer that the whole of the village in dispute is the property of Musammat Thakro, and is not the estate left by Ganesh Singh, and that up to the date of the deed of gift in question it remained in her possession."

The High Court reversed this judgment and held " that the Plaintiff has made good his appeal on the ground that the record of his mothers name was of the common place ism-i-farzi character, that she consequently and in fact never had any possession of the property in any way adverse to Ganesh Singh, its owner, or to the Plaintiff, who with his half- brother Dip Chand is his heir."

The High Court thereupon decreed that the Plaintiff should recover possession of the whole of the property in which he was only declared to be entitled to a half-share, the right of the donees being declared null and void, and it being further declared that the decree should not affect the rights and interests of the minor son Dip Chand to his fathers estate of Shahpur Thatvi.

Graham, Q.C., and Cowell, for the Appellants.

Mayne, and J. G. Witt, for the Respondent.

The cases cited were Nawab Azimut Ali Khan v. Hurdwaree Mull (13 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 395.) ; Uman Pershad v. Gandharp Sing (Law Rep. 14 Ind. Ap. 127.) ; Sreeman Chunder Dey v. Gopaul Chunder Chuckerbutty (11 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 28.). 1887. Dec. 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR BARNES PEACOCK —

This is an appeal by Musammat Thakro and other ladies against Ganga Parshad, the Respondent. The appeal is from a decree of the High Court of the North- Western Provinces at Allahabad. The suit was brought by Ganga Parshad against Musammat Thakro, his mother, and the other ladies, who were the daughters of Musammat Thakro, in whose favour the mother had executed a deed of conveyance, the Plaintiff alleged that his father, Ganesh Singh, " had a large property; that he, on different occasions, by mortgage and private and public purchase, having obtained mouzah Shapur Thatvi in his own name, as well as in the name of Musammat Thakro, Plaintif