( 1 ) THIS is defendants' appeal from the decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, class I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1950, by which a deed of gift Ex. P-9 dated 16-4-1949, executed by Mst. Bhirapkuar, appellant No. 1, in favour of dwarkaprasad, appellant No. 2, has been held to be not binding on the plaintiff-respondent, Mannoolalsingh, now represented by his sons and widow, respondents 1 (a), (b), (e) and (d ).

( 2 ) PRITHISINGH, the propositus of the family, left behind four sons, Chaitsingh, bhawarsingh, Kanwal-singh, and Nawalsingh. Bhawarsingh was married to Mst. Akalo from whom he had a son, Tikaftsingh, who died on 24-4-1984. Tikaitsingh held -/8/- share of village Karwa, which, on his death devolved upon his widows, dhirajkuar and Champakuar, -/5/-village share being mutated in the name of dhirajkuar and -/3/- in that of Champakuar. Champakuar, however, remarried and left the family sometime in the year 1938 and consequently her -/3/- village share reverted to Dhirajkuar.

( 3 ) KANWALSINGH left behind two sons, Manpoo-lalsingh, the plaintiff, and Tiloksingh, father of appellant No. 2, Dwarkaprasad, Mannoolalsingh was the son of his legally married wife. Tiloksingh was born of Kanwalsingh from Mst. Akalo and his legitimacy is in question. According to the plaintiff, Mst. Akalo was the mistress of kanwalsingh and not his legally married wife. On the other hand, the case of the defendants was that Mst. Akolo had married Kanwalsingh after the death of bhawarsingh in accordance with the custom of the caste.

( 4 ) DHIRAJKUAR executed a deed of gift dated 16-9-1949 in favour of Dwarkaprasad. The plaintiff instituted the suit from whieh this appeal arises, for a declaration that the transfer was not binding on the reversioners after the demise of Dhirajkuar. According to him, although the parties are Raj-Gonds, they had long ago adopted hinduism and were classed as Kshatriyas. His case, therefore, was that Dhirajkuar held only a widow's interest in the property and accordingly had no absolute power of disposition.

( 5 ) THE defendants denied that the parties had adopted Hinduism or were governed by the Hindu Law. In this view, they contended that Dhirajkuar was the absolute owner of the village share in question. They further contended that Tikaitsingh had left a will a day before his death by which he had given absolute right to his widows in the village share after his death. In this view also they challenged the right of the plaintiff to question the alienation of Dhirajkuar. Their further plea was that Tiloksingh was all along joint with his uterine brother Tikaitsingh and, therefore, his son Dwarkaprasad as a joint member of the family has a preferential claim to inheritance.

( 6 ) THE trial Court held that the parties had adopted lex loci of the province, namely, Benaras School of Hindu Law, and therefore, the widows got only a limited interest in the property of Bhawarsingh. It also held that no valid marriage between Kanwal-singh and Mst. Akalo was established and accordingly dwarkaprasad being the son of the illegitimate issue of Kanwalsingh could not compete with the plaintiff in the matter of inheritance. As regards the will of tikaitsingh setup by the defendants, the Court held that its execution by tikaitsingh in a proper disposing mind was not established. In this view, it granted a decree to the plaintiff declaring his right to the property after the demise of dhirajkuar.

( 7 ) AN objection has been raised that since the passing of the Hindu Succession act, 1956, the plaintiff's character as revcrsioner has ceased to exist and accordingly his suit is liable to be dismissed. This question was considered recently by the Patna High Court in Ram Ayodhya Missir v. Raghu-nath Missir, 1956 Bih L J r 734 (A), in which, in similar circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was held to be untenable and was dismissed. The learned Counsel for the respondents has only formally demurred to this view, but was not ab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document