Mahtab Kuar and Others Vs Bhawani and Another

Pearson, J.@mdashThere are no grounds for holding that Musammat Bhawani, defendant, appellant, became unchaste during the life of her husband Dariao Singh. He died in 1860, and her illegitimate child would seem to have been born in or about 1869. It may be concluded therefore that the right of inheritance to her husband''s estate jointly with his other wife, Musammat Ganesh had vested in her by law long before she was guilty of misconduct. The lower Appellate Court considers that nevertheless she has forfeited that right by her misconduct because she had not acquired possession of her husband''s estate before the death of his elder wife in 1870. His reason for thinking that she did not acquire possession of her husband''s estate until after Musammat Ganesh''s death is merely that the latter''s name only was recorded after Dariao Singh''s death. But the reason does not seem to be a good one. Musammat Ganesh, when her name was recorded as her husband''s heir, [1733 acknowledged the joint heirship of Musammat Bhawani, and there is no reason to doubt that the latter continued to live in her husband''s house, and to be supported out of his estate, with the other widow. Musammat Ganesh was probably the head of the house and the manager of the estate, but Musammat Bhawani cannot be regarded as having been out of possession. But, however this may be. We conceive it to be sufficient for the protection of her right that it had vested in her by law before her misconduct. In hex-presence none of the plaintiffs have any right to succeed to the estate of Dariao Singh aforesaid. It is unnecessary to discuss the question of the legitimacy of the defendant, appellant, Maharaj Singh. We decree the appeal with costs, and dismiss the suit by reversal of the lower Court''s decree.