JUDGMENT

Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ. - The dispute in this appeal is confined to a 13 biswas and odd share in the village Chalautha which was held by Musammat Chetni, the widow of Kanhai Lal, and the question for consideration is whether she had made a valid suphal sankalp of the same in favour of Lachhman Prasad, a priest of Gaya, so as to bind the members of the family to which her husband belonged or his reversionary heirs.

2. Kanhai Lal had died in the life-time of his father Shib Dayal. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that Shib Dayal and Kantoai Lal lived separately, that the property in dispute was the separate property of Kanhai Lal, and that on his death it devolved on Musammat Chetni as a Hindu widow. They denied that any gift had been made or could have been validly made by Musammat Chetni in favour of Lachhman Prasad. Shib Dayal died in 1902. Musammat Chetni died in 1916. One of the plaintiffs, Ram Lal, claimed to be the son of one of the sisters of Kanhai Lal, and also claimed to have acquired by purchase the shares of the sons of the other sisters of Kanhai Lal. The other plaintiff, Raja Fateh Singh, claimed to have purchased a half share of the property in question from Ram Lal. There were two other plaintiffs, who claimed to have derived their title under a deed of gift made by Ram Lal and Raja Pateh Singh. The defendants are the transferees and successors in interest of Lachhman Prasad. Their case was that Shib Dayal and Kanhai Lal lived jointly, that after the death of the latter, the property in dispute was entered in the name of Musammat Chetni, his widow, who remained in possession as an adverse owner, and that she had a right to make a valid gift of the same for the spiritual benefit of her deceased husband. They denied that the plaintiff, Ram Lal, or the persons from whom he claimed to derive his title were the nearest reversionary heirs of Kanhai Lal.

3. The court below found that Shib Dayal and Kanhai Lal lived separately, that the property in dispute was the self-acquired property of the latter, that on the death of Kanhai Lal Musammat Chetni inherited the same as a Hindu widow and that she could not have acquired an adverse title thereto. It further held that no, gift was shown to have been made or could have been validly made by Musammat Chetni in favour of Lachhman Prasad and that the plaintiffs, as the lawful successors in interest of her husband, had a right to recover possession of the property in question.

4. The correctness of these findings is challenged here. There can be no doubt that Ram Lal and his vendors were the nearest reversionary heirs of Kanhai Lal. The evidence on the record satisfactorily establishes that Shib Dayal and Kanhai Lal lived separately and carried on a separate cloth business and that the property in dispute was the self-acquired property of the latter. In fact, on the death of Kanhai Lal, an application was made by Musammat Chetni for a succession certificate to collect certain debts due to her deceased husband. Shib Dayal resisted that application on the ground that Kanhai Lal lived jointly with him; but the District Judge of Shahjahanpur, who heard the application, came to the conclusion that Shib Dayal and Kanhai Lal lived and carried on business separately, that each of them was assessed to Income Tax, and that Musammat Chetni was entitled to collect the debts due to her husband. Shib Dayal took no steps thereafter to establish his title against Musammat Chetni by a suit and allowed Musammat Chetni to remain in separate possession of the disputed property from the time of the death of her husband. Indeed Her name was recorded in the place of her deceased husband in respect of the disputed property in the revenue papers and she was in receipt of the profits of the same on her account. She had only a life-interest in the said property; but she could alienate any reasonable portion of the same for pious or religious purposes or for the spiritual benefit of her hus