Skip to content


Bhageshwari Singh Vs. Hingu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All218
AppellantBhageshwari Singh
RespondentHingu and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....pleas upon which the case went to trial is the one contained in para. 2 of the additional pleas:sondat and the answering defendants, who are his own nephews, belong to one family, as it will appear from the pedigree given below. during their lifetime, sondat and the father of the answering defendants, together with the answering defendants, lived as members of a joint hindu family, and all affairs and property were joint. accordingly, after the death of sondat, balgovind, father of these defendants, became the owner and possessor of the ancestral property in dispute as the surviving member of the joint hindu family. after the death of balgovind, these defendants entered into proprietary possession and occupation of the property in the same way and are still in possession.4. the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a house situate in Kachhwa Bazar, taluqa Majhwa, district Mirzapur.

2. The plaintiff alleged that one Sondat was the last male holder of his property. He died, leaving a widow, Mt. Punia, a daughter, Mt. Tulshi, and three grandsons, namely, Sat Narayan, Manhgu and Ram Narayan. The property vested in Mt. Punia with the limited estate of a Hindu widow. She executed a deed of gift in favour of one of her grandsons, Sat Narayan. Sat Narayan, in conjunction with two of his brothers, executed a sale deed of the house in favour of the plaintiff appellant on 16th March 1923. Mt. Punia died six or seven years before the suit. About two years before the institution of the suit, the plaintiff's vendors are alleged to have let out the house to the defendants as their tenants. The usual notice was served on the defendants to vacate the house. They refused to vacate it. Hence the suit.

3. The suit was resisted upon various grounds but with many of the pleas put forward by the defendants we are not concerned in this appeal. The principal pleas upon which the case went to trial is the one contained in para. 2 of the additional pleas:

Sondat and the answering defendants, who are his own nephews, belong to one family, as it will appear from the pedigree given below. During their lifetime, Sondat and the father of the answering defendants, together with the answering defendants, lived as members of a joint Hindu family, and all affairs and property were joint. Accordingly, after the death of Sondat, Balgovind, father of these defendants, became the owner and possessor of the ancestral property in dispute as the surviving member of the joint Hindu family. After the death of Balgovind, these defendants entered into proprietary possession and occupation of the property in the same way and are still in possession.

4. The Court of first instance repelled the pleas put forward by the defendants and decreed the plaintiff's suit.

5. The lower appellate Court has reversed its decision and arrived at a clear and categorical finding that Sondat died as the member of a joint family and the defendants had got the property through their father by right of survivorship. This is a rank finding of fact. It is not vitiated by misapplication of substantive law or by an error of procedure. An inference from facts admitted or proved may under certain circumstances, be question of law, but is not necessarily a question of law and where the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is one which hinges upon a balance of evidence produced in a case the said conclusion is one of fact and not of law. We have not the slightest doubt that the finding reached by the Court below is a finding of fact. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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