9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil, Case No. 159 dated 19.7.63. She executed a deed of Gift in favour of Shri Dhari, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in respect of 43-14 bighas of land and a building mentioned in Clause 1 (f) of the Plaint. On 26.11.48 Shri Hari Ram filed a Civil Suit No. 63 of 1948 in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi for possession of the property in terms of the alleged compromise pursuant to which the gift was made to Shri Dhari or in the alternative to get a declaration that the deed of gift should be cancelled on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition of the compromise deed. Shri Hari Ram, since deceased, the father of the respondents herein and Shri Dhari, since deceased, father of the appellants herein were cousin brot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Hari Ram in accordance with the aforementioned order. The one storeyed slate roof house was to remain with Shri Dhari. 4. In 1956, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force w.e.f. 17.6.56. With the coming into force of the said Act Mst. Sheru @ Bhushehari became absolute owner in respect of all her properties including those which were the subject matter of the said Civil Suit No. 63 of 1948. 5. On 9.3.1959 Mst. Sheru @ Bhushehari executed a will in respect of all her properties in favour of Shri Gopal Singh, Shri Jagdish, Shri Bhup Singh and Shri Kirat Ram all sons of Shri Dhari. Shri Hari Ram died during the life time of Mst. Sheru @ Bhushehari. Mst. Sheru died on 26.3.60. Shri Dhari died on 26.6.63. The plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omise decree in Suit No. 63 of 1948 in the manner it did and in holding that the suit was one in which Hariram did not challenge the gift till the lifetime of Bushehari and that he filed the said suit only for the purpose of avoiding operation of the gift after the lifetime of Bushehari. The compromise decree should be construed as that the parties agreed that the properties would be enjoyed by Bushehari till her lifetime and the gift made by her in favour of Dhari would remain operative till the lifetime of Bushehari but not beyond that. When Bushehari inherited the properties from her husband in 1942 she had only life interest in the said properties. She was a limited owner upto 1956 thereafter in 1956 when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversioners to the property after the death of the limited owner though the right to enjoy for a limited period remains in the done. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had no application to the property. It was held that it was not in the possession of the widow at the time of the death. We are of the opinion that the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since in this case after the purported gift, it was held that the gift was legally valid, Mst. Bushehari remained the owner of the property in question, therefore, was competent to dispose it of when she made the Will. 9. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of this case the appeal must be allowed. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
