The main legal point established in the judgment is that the widows had only a limited interest in the property and could not gift or alienate it. The court also clarified the rights of the plaintiff as an heir and the validity of the gifts made by one of the widows.

1. Hiraman and Amersingh sons of Lachhman were two brothers. The former married Kasturibai and had a son Tikaram who married Subheti Kala and Subheti Khurd. Amersingh left five sons, Ganaram, Harisingh, Durgaprasad Bhairon and Nathuram. These are now all dead Harisingh brought the present suit. Hiraman and Amersingh were separate. After Hiraman's death his property was inherited by his widow Kasturibai, Tikaram baring died before his father. The property then consisted of the whole of mouza Bagdari, Lingpani and Bhaliwada and a half share in Bilanda, and fields and houses and moveable. Kasturibai died in 1886, and the two widows of Tikaram remained in possession of the property. After some years these two separated, Subheti Kala getting mouza Bilanda and Bhaliwada and Subheti Khurd getting Bagdari and Lingpani. Subheti Khurd is said to have adopted defendant No. 1 as her son, but Subheti Kala sued in 1901 and got that adoption declared invalid. Subheti Khurd died on 28-2-21, and plaintiff has brought this suit for the property left by her. His story is that after Kasturibai's death his father Amersingh became entitled to the property of Hiraman as the next reversioner, but that he allowed the widows of Tikaram to enjoy the property in lieu of maintenance, and that it thus came to be recorded in their names. It was further stated that after the death of Subheti Khurd defendants wrongfully took possession of the property, and it was contended that defendant No. 2 who was an agent of Subheti Khurd for some years took advantage of this position and got the 16 annas of mouza, Lingpani entered in the name of his son defendant No. 1, and that Bagdari was entered in his son's name in the same way. Subheti Kala also died but the property left by her is not in suit.

2. The defence was that the fields and moveables did not belong to Hiraman. Subheti Khurd was said to have taken possession as a trespasser after the death of Kasturibai, and it was stated that her possession was adverse to Amersingh, that she acquired a valid title by prescription, that she gave Bigdari and some other property by a deed of gift to defendant No 1 and later on gave him Langpani and the rest of the property orally, placing him in possession, and that at the time of these gifts defendant No. 2 was not her Mukhtyar and never exercised influence over her. It was further contended that it was decided in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1916 in the Court of the District Judge, Chhindwara, that Subheti Khurd had an absolute interest in the property in suit; and that the plaintiff being a party to that suit, the decision therein operates as res judicata.

3. Plaintiff in reply stated that after Kasturibai's death it was settled between Amersingh and the two Subhetis that the women would enjoy the property in lieu of maintenance, and that they only acquired a widow's interest in the property. It was denied that the alleged gift passed any title to defendant No. 1 who was never put in possession .

4. The case eventually went to trial on the following issues:--

1. Whether after the death of Mt. Kasturi it was agreed between Amersingh and the two Subhetis that they should remain in possession of the property in suit and should enjoy it in lieu of maintenance ?

2. If not, what interest did the two Subhetis claim and assert in the plaint property and what interest did they acquire therein by adverse possession?

3. Whether they had only a widow's estate in the property ?

4. Whether Subheti Khurd gifted the mouza Bagdari and other property by the deed dated 12-10-15 ?

5. Whether the mouza Lingpani together with the rest of the plaint property was gifted orally.

6. Whether the defendant No. 1 was duly put in possession ?

7. Whether the defendant No. 2 was her Mukhtyar at the time of the gifts ?

8. Whether the gifts were made under undue influence or whether she gifted the property of her free will ? Whether the gifts are legally valid ?

9. Whether the plaintiff is an heir of Mt. Subheti Khurd