TMI Blog1916 (6) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 1904, Babuain Maharaj Rani, who held Mahgawan for a Hindu widow's interest, made, by a deed of gift, an absolute transfer of Mahgawan to the appellant, and he obtained possession. To that transfer Mahabir Singh and his younger brother, Bechu Singh, were consenting parties. At the time of the transfer Mahabir Singh was the heir to Mahgawan expectant on the death of Babuain Maharaj Rani, and the appellant is his only son. Upon the transfer to him the appellant applied to the Revenue authorities for mutation of names in his favour. On the 9th of January 1905, the respondent, who was not a member of the family which had held Mahgawan, tiled objections to mutation of names being made in the appellant's favour, alleging that Babuain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hu Singh were not legitimate; alleged that the nearest reversioners were persons whom he described as Girdhara Singh and Kalka Singh; and asserted title in himself through the alleged will of 1866 of Babu Pirthipal Singh. 5. The Subordinate Judge of Bara Banki found that Babuain Maharaj Rani had executed the deed of gift of 1904, in favour of the appellant with the consent of Mahabir Singh and Bechu Singh, who were, he found, legitimate; that the teluqa passed under that deed of gift to the appellant; that the appellant-was then and had been since the date of the deed of gift in proprietary possession of the taluqa; that Girdhara Singh and Kalka Singh were fictitious persons; and that Babu Pirthipal Singh had not made the alleged will of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the execution of the deed of gift of the 13th of December, 1904, and his counsel confined his contention in opposition to the decree of the Subordinate Judge to an argument that the deed of gift did not represent any genuine transaction, and that Babuain Maharaj Rani had remained in possession, and had no power to confer any valid title upon Babu Chandrika Bakhsh Singh. 8. The suit was not a suit for the ejectment of a defendant who was in possession, in which the plaintiff would have to prove a better title in himself to the possession of the property than the title of the defendant. On the contrary, it is a suit for a declaration of title by a plaintiff who was and is in possession. The Subordinate Judge had found that Raja Indar Bikra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
