1929 (1) TMI 7 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Oral gift of the grove by Babu Bansi Lal Singh to Babu Sheo Baksh Rai.
2. Joint Hindu family status of Babu Bansi Lal Singh and Babu Bishunath Prasad Singh.
3. Title to the grove after the deaths of Babu Bansi Lal Singh and his widow.
4. Adverse possession by Babu Bansi Lal Singh's widow and daughter-in-law.
5. Benami nature of the sale deed dated 1st March 1924.
6. Plaintiff's decree based on possessory title of Mt. Rajeshwari Debi.
7. Plaintiff as a bona fide transferee for value from an ostensible owner.
8. Compensation entitlement of defendant 2 if the plaintiff is awarded a decree.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Oral Gift of the Grove:
The court found that the alleged oral gift by Babu Bansi Lal Singh to Babu Sheo Baksh Rai was not proven. The evidence did not support the claim that such a gift was made when Babu Bansi Lal Singh moved to Lucknow.

2. Joint Hindu Family Status:
The court disagreed with the Subordinate Judge's finding that Babu Bansi Lal Singh and Babu Bishunath Prasad Singh constituted a joint Hindu family at the time of Babu Bansi Lal Singh's death. The presumption of joint family status was weak due to the distant relationship and was rebutted by evidence showing that Babu Bansi Lal Singh lived separately in Lakhimpur or Lucknow, while Babu Bishunath Prasad Singh lived in Benares. The will of Babu Bansi Lal Singh further supported his status as a separated Hindu.

3. Title to the Grove:
The title to the grove passed to Mt. Anarkali Debi upon Babu Bansi Lal Singh's death and subsequently to Babu Bishunath Prasad Singh after Mt. Anarkali Debi's death. The plaintiff-respondent did not contest that Babu Bishunath Prasad Singh was the nearest heir.

4. Adverse Possession:
The possession of Babu Bansi Lal Singh's widow was not adverse as she was entitled to the property for her lifetime. The daughter-in-law, Mt. Rajeshwari Debi, did not possess the grove for the requisite 12 years to claim adverse possession, as the Magistrate's order in 1921 confirmed the defendants' possession.

5. Benami Nature of the Sale Deed:
The court found that the sale deed dated 1st March 1924 was indeed benami for defendant 2, Babu Khush Waqt Rai, who paid the consideration after borrowing money. The evidence satisfactorily proved the benami nature of the transaction.

6. Plaintiff's Decree Based on Possessory Title:
The court held that the plaintiff could not succeed on the basis of possessory title. Mt. Rajeshwari Debi's possession was not continuous or sufficient to establish possessory title, as she was not in possession for the required period and had not received produce from the grove for several years.

7. Plaintiff as a Bona Fide Transferee:
The court did not agree with the Subordinate Judge's finding that the plaintiff was a bona fide transferee for value from an ostensible owner. The plaintiff failed to take reasonable care to ascertain Mt. Rajeshwari Debi's title, knowing she could not have a valid title as a daughter-in-law under Hindu law. The plaintiff's reliance on the khewats and the mutation order was insufficient.

8. Compensation Entitlement:
Given the findings, the court did not need to rule on the compensation issue. However, it agreed with the Subordinate Judge that if the plaintiff were entitled to the property, defendant 2 should receive compensation for the buildings and well constructed by his father and himself.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the Subordinate Judge's decree was set aside, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs in both courts. The cross-objections regarding compensation were dismissed.