Skip to content


Surajbali and anr. Vs. Sri Pal Rai and ors. and Raghunath Rai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR24All82
AppellantSurajbali and anr.
RespondentSri Pal Rai and ors. and Raghunath Rai and anr.
Excerpt:
.....and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - there is another reason why the suit must fail. on both these grounds the suit must fail......stridhan. we have held in that case that such a share must be deemed to be a woman's stridhan. that being so, musammat phuljhari was, competent to make the alienation which has been impeached in this case. it, is conceded that the decree for possession which, was made by the lower appellate court could not in any event be sustained. there is another reason why the suit must fail. raghunath is a nearer reversioner than the plaintiffs, and as it has not been found that he is in collusion with the widow, the plaintiff's are not entitled to maintain the suit. on both these grounds the suit must fail. the result is that we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court with costs, and restore that of the court of first instance. the appellants will get their costs of.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. In this appeal the game question arises which arose in Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1900, which we have just decided, namely, whether the share which a mother gets at a partition between her sons is her stridhan. We have held in that case that such a share must be deemed to be a woman's stridhan. That being so, Musammat Phuljhari was, competent to make the alienation which has been impeached in this case. It, is conceded that the decree for possession which, was made by the lower appellate court could not in any event be sustained. There is another reason why the suit must fail. Raghunath is a nearer reversioner than the plaintiffs, and as it has not been found that he is in collusion with the widow, the plaintiff's are not entitled to maintain the suit. On both these grounds the suit must fail. The result is that we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court with costs, and restore that of the court of first instance. The appellants will get their costs of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //