9911796707
TMI Blog1927 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but her co-widow lived till 1912, thus surviving her husband for 66 years. 5. Kashibai, the daughter, died in 1907, a few days after the death of her husband Shivgouda. Shidagouda, her eldestson, died in 1907, leaving an adopted son named Bhau (defendant 1). 6. Kashibai had a second son, Pirgouda. (defendant 2) who, however, had been given in adoption to another family some years before Kashibai's death. 7. The pedigree of the family is as follows: 8. It is no longer in dispute that when the succession opened out on the death of Tayava in 1912, Annagouda was under the Hindu Law the nearest heir of Akkagouda, in preference to Bhau (defendant 1) and Pirgouda (defendant 2). 9. Tayava had alienated most of her husband ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w were not valid. 13. It is admitted that Annagouda became entitled to the succession in 1912 and that the plaintiffs claim. under or through him and, therefore, have no better title to succeed in this suit than Annagouda had. 14. On the written statements tiled by the defendants, issues were raised, of which the two material ones are: 1. Are the plaintiffs estopped from bringing this suit? 2. Do the defendants prove that the transactions of gift (to Basappa) and sale (to Shivgouda) are legal and valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 15. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs on both issues and gave them a decree. 16. The High Court held that no question of estoppel arose in the case; but on issue 2 held that bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alive and were nearer in succession. 4. That the sale to Annagouda himself did not estop him from questioning other the gift to Basappa or the sale to Shivgouda, as the transactions were separate and in no way interdependent, and that there was no such equity in favour of the defendants as the High Court assumed. 19. Their Lordships consider that the decision of this case depends upon how far the three documents can be taken as separate and independent, or so connected as to form one transaction. 20. The long lapse of time between the execution of the deeds and the institution of the suit has rendered it impossible to prove what actually occurred between the parties on that occasion. There is not sufficiently definite evidence to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and an agreement to sell such interest would also be void in law. It is not necessary to consider that question, because he did not in fact either sell or agree to sell his reversionary interest. It is settled law that an alienation by a widow in excess of her powers is not altogether void,. but only voidable by the reversioners, who may either singly or as a body be precluded from exercising their right to avoid it either by express ratification or by acts which treat it as valid or binding. 25. If some person other than Annagouda had been, at the death of Tayava, the, nearest heir of her husband, it might; have been open to him to question all or any of the three deeds, but Annagouda himself being a party to and benefiting by the tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
