CHANDERJIT DAS Vs. DEBI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of a suit for possession over five annas four pies odd share in Mahal No. 2 Tappa Nai Kami of village Heoti, and three annas six pies two suls odd share in Tappa Khas of village Dewarwa in the district of Gorakhpur. The following pedigree will be of help in understanding the facts of the case.

(2.) ONE Gopal Das died in the year 1892 leaving a widow Ram Kali and two daughters Deomurta and Sheoraji, three nephews, Bindhyachal Das, father of Kamta Das and Mukut Das, defendants 3 and 4, Mahabir Das, defendant 1 and Kukur Das, defendant 2 and Mt. Shamraji, widow of Sarju Das, nephew of Gopal Das. The property in suit over which possession is sought along with other property already in the possession of the plaintiffs, stood in the name of Gopal Das. On his death there was a dispute in mutation proceedings. There were four sets of claimants. Ram Kali wanted her name to be mutated on the property in her right as a widow on the allegation that the deceased was separate from his nephews. Bindhyashal Das, Mahabir Das and Kukur Das claimed the property as their own by right of survivorship on the allegation that Gopal Das was joint with them. Deomurta and Sheoraji claimed the property as daughters and Shyamraji claimed a share in it along with the nephews. There was a compromise dated 13 -4 -1893 amongst all the claimants. By this compromise 1/3rd of the zamindari property was given to Deomurta, another 1/3 rd to Sheoraji and the remaining 1/3rd to the three nephews together, and 12 bighas of sir land of village Heoti was given to the widow for her maintenance with the provision that after her death that was also to devolve on the daughters and the nephews in the same proportion in which the other properties had been given. Shyamraji did not take any property. The parties entered into possession of the various portions of the properties in accordance with the terms of the compromise.

(3.) THE suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed in 1938 by plaintiffs 1 to 4, sons of Deomurta, on the allegations that Gopal Das was separate from his nephews and was the sole owner of the property that stood in his name, that the compromise was not binding upon the plaintiffs, that they were entitled to succeed along with Ram Rachha Das pro forma defendant 9 son of Sheoraji and Brij Raj Das, defendant 10 son of Deomurta, and that the