9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the firm. Therein he appears to have alleged that Jwalaprasad who had a half share in the suit properties had been colluding with the other defendants. Bulakichand died during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter his widow Pattobai was impleaded as his legal representative. During the pendency of the suit Jwalaprasad, Karnimal, Raggamal and Pannalal also died. Neither Jwalaprasad nor Karnimal left any successors. Raggamal was succeeded by his son Ganeshilal and Pannalal by his son Lakshmichand. They were duly impleaded in the suit. On June 7, 1941, the parties to the suit compromised their disputes. It may be noted that to that compromise the minor sons of Lakshmichand as well as of Ganeshilal were also parties. Before compromising the suit the parties had obtained the leave of the court as the minor defendants had joined the compromise. Under the compromise, a portion of the suit properties was given to Pattobai and the remaining portion to the defendants in that suit. Pattobai alienated the properties given to her under, three different sale deeds i.e. one on July 15, 1941 and the other two on July 24, 1941. The first sale deed was for a sum of ₹ 1,000/and the other two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingle judge that the compromise recorded amounted to a family settlement. These appeals are directed against that judgment. The first question that falls for consideration is whether on a true construction of the compromise decree it can be held that Pattobai had been given an absolute estate ? According to the plaintiffs Pattobai having been impleaded to the suit as a legal representative of her husband, in law she could not take an absolute estate; she could only have a widow's estate and therefore in construing the compromise decree, we must bear in mind the principles of Hindu Law and if we do so, the only possible conclusion is that the intention of the parties was only to give her a life estate. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the defendant that under law Pattobai was entitled to enjoy all the properties included in the plaint in the earlier suit during her life time but she agreed to give up her right in bulk of the properties in consideration of her getting an absolute estate in a small portion of the properties involved in that suit. It was further urged on his behalf that the compromise deed specifically says that the properties given to Pattobai are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different view. Its conclusion, as mentioned earlier, proceeded on the basis that a Hindu widow cannot enlarge her own estate by entering into a compromise with, others. It is well settled that a Hindu widow cannot enlarge her estate by entering into a compromise with third parties to 'the prejudice to the ultimate reversioners. But the same will not be true if the compromise is entered into with persons who ultimately become the reversioners. It was urged on behalf of the respondents that Pattobai was impleaded in the earlier suit only as a legal representative of her deceased husband, therefore she could only represent his estate and not carve out an estate for herself. But this argument overlooks the fact that according to Pattobai she was entitled to enjoy the entire properties included in the earlier suit during her life time; but under the compromise a fraction of those properties were given to her absolutely; that being so the plaintiffs are estopped from backing out of that compromise. It was urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the representation made by the defendants in the earlier suit is at best a representation as regards the true legal position and such a repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to go back on that arrangement when reversion actually opens. At the time of the compromise Lakshmichand and Ganeshilal were the nearest presumptive reversioners. They must be deemed to have known their rights under law. Under the compromise they purported to give a portion of the suit properties absolutely to Pattobai, evidently in consideration of her giving up, her claim in respect of the other properties. They cannot be now permitted to resile from the compromise and claim a right inconsistent With the one embodied in the compromise. They cannot advance their case by impleading their sons as co-plaintiffs. Their sons can only claim through them. For the first time in this Court it was urged that the plea of estoppel was not available to the defendant as no such plea had been taken in the pleadings. It is true that no specific plea of estoppel had been taken in the written statement filed by the defendant. But be had definitely stated in paragraph 14 of his written statement that the plaintiffs are bound by the compromise and have no right to deny the right of Pattobai over the whole of the properties sold to him. One of the issue ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
