LexMUSAMMAT PHOOL KUER versus MUSAMMAT PEM KUER AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- t ... S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 793 The appellant's last contention that the munafa (rent) should not be calculated on· the principle laid ·down in Radhacharan v. · Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1) but should have been assessed on a fair share of the profits of the land has no substance because the claim was not made in the grounds of appeal to the Privy Council and was not even mentioned in the additional grounds of appeal. It was for the first time made be- fore us at the hearing and we see no valid grounds for ·entertaining it at this late stage. Moreover, it seems to us that the claim has no substance in the absence of any .evidence about the proportion the original patni rent bore to the r.evenue and cesses. For the reasons given above all these appeals fail except to the extent that the decree of the High Court is modified in that the amounts decreed by way of mesne profits in the various suits will bear interest at the rate of four per cent. instead of six per cent. The · parties will bear their own costs in all these appeals. Appeals dismissed. Agent for the appellant in Civil Appeals No. 62 to 74 :lJ.ld 75 to 92 : P. K. Bose. 'W Agent for respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeals Nos. 68 • • to 74 : Ganpat Rai. Agent for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 m Civil · Appeals Nos. 75 to 92 : Sukumar Ghose. MUSAMMAT PHOOL KUER ti. MUSAMMAT PEM KUER AND ANOTHE.lt. PANDIT MADAN MOHAN v. MUSAMMAT PEM KUER AND ANOTHER . [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR. and VMAN BosE JJ.] Hindu law-Widow-Surrender 'to next reversioner and stranger-Validity-Compromise by widow-When binding O# reversioner. (1) (1918) 27 C.L.J. 532. 1952 Raja Bhupendra Narain Singha Bahadur v. Maharaj Bahadur Singh and Others. Mahajan /. 1952 April 24 1952 Musammat Phool Kuer v. Musammat Pem Kuer and Another. Mahaian f. 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] A relinquishment by a Hindu widow of her estate in favour of the next reversioner and a stranger in equal moieties is not a valid surrender under Hindu law. A valid surrender cannot be made in favour of anybody except the next heir of the husband. Mummareddi Nagireddi v. Pitti Durairaia Naidu [19511 (S.C.R. 655) followed. It is competent to a Hindu widow to enter into a compro- mise in the course of the suit bona fide in the interest of the estate and not for her personal advantage and a decree passed on such a compromise will be binding on the reversioner. The question whether a compromise is a bona fide settlement of a disputed right between the parties depends on tho substance of the transaction and in order that it may bind the estate it should be a prudent and reasonable act. [On the facts their Lordships held, agreeing with the High Court, that the compro- mise in the present case was neither prudent nor reasonable so far as it affected the interests of the estate and of the ultimate reversioners and that it was not, therefore, binding on the reversioners.] Ramsumaran Prasad v. Shyam Kumari ( 49 I. A. 342), Mohendra Nath Biswas v. Shamsunnessa Khatun (21 C.L.f. 157) and lmrit Kunwar v. Roop Narain Singh (6 C.L.R. 76) followed. Mata Prasad v. Nageshar Sahai (52 I.A. 393) distinguished. C1VIL APPELLATE Juruso1cnoN : Civil Appeals Nos. 29 and 30 of 1951. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 1943, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Verma and Yorke JJ.) in First Appeal No. 48 of 1938 arising out of the ' f • - judgment and decree dated 6th August, 1937, of the - Court of the Additional Civil Judge at Agra in Suit No. 30 of 1936. M. C. Setalvad and Kirpa Ram (K. B. Asthana, with them) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1951. K. N. Agarwal for the appellant in Civil Appeal • No. 30 of 1951. C. K. Daphtary (G. C. Mathur, with him) for the respondents in both the appeals. 1952. April 24. The Judgment of the' Court wa~ delivered by MAHAJAN J. • } • • ·,._ ~ .. ' ,, ""' \ ~ \- ' I ~ MAHAJAN J.--The dispute in this appeal concerns the zemindari and house pro- perties last owned by Shaha Chiranji Lal who died at a young age on the 14th May, 1913, leaving him surviving a widow, Mst. Khem Kuer, and his mother Mst. Mohan Kuer, besides a number of collaterals, indicated in the pedigree table below :- Shah Pirthi Raj I I Mst. Tulsa Kuer=Shah Lal Chand=Mst. Mohan Kuer .1 Hira Lal Shah Jal Kisen I Mst. Ram Kuer =Kherpal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.