Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh vs Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer on 7 November, 1952

   

    One Raja Bisheshwar Bux Singh, the father of the plaintiff and of the defendant's husband, was a taluqdar of Oudh, and the estate known as Gangwat Estate, to which he succeeded in 1925 on the death of the widow of the last holder, is one to which the Oudh Estates Act (I of,1869) applies. Raja Bisheshwar died on 16th October, 1930, leaving behind him two sons, the elder of whom, Bajrang Bahadur, is the plaintiff in the present litigation, while the younger, whose name was Dhuj Singh, has died since then, being survived by his widow Bakhtraj Kuer who is the defendant in the suit. Shortly before his death Raja Bisheshwar executed a will dated 11th September, 1929, by which five properties, described in lists A and B attached to the plaint, were bequeathed to Dhuj Singh, the younger son, by way of making provisions for the maintenance of the said son and his heirs. On the death of Raja Bisheshwar, the estatement to the plaintiff as his eldest son under the provisions of the Oudh Estates Act and Dhuj Singh got only he five properties mentioned above under the terms of his father's will. Dhuj Singh had no issue of his own and on his death in 1940 disputes arose in respect of these properties between the plaintiff on the one land and Dhuj Singh's widow on the other. The plaintiff succeeded at first in having his name mutated as owner of these properties in the revenue records in place of his deceased brother, but the appellate revenue authority ultimately set aside this order and directed mutation to be made in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon commenced the suit out of which this appeal arises, for declaration of his title to the five properties mentioned above on the allegation that they vested in him on the death of Dhuj Singh and that the defendant could not) in law, assert any right to, the same.

    Bisheshwar Bux Singh, as the full owner of the properties, was competent to dispose of them in any way he liked and under his will it was the defendant and not the plaintiff in whom the properties vested after the death of Dhuj Singh. The contention, in substance, was that the will created a life estate for Dhuj Singh followed by a devise in favour of the widow as his personal heir.

    The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.