(1.) The first is a plaintiff's and the other a defendant's appeal against a decree of the Civil Judge of Jhansi in a suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of a complete village and a complete mahal in each of two other villages. The plaintiff set forth a pedigree in the plaint, the correctness of which is now admitted by the defendant. Referring to that pedigree we find that Suraj Prasad was the maternal ancestor of the plaintiff who died in 1898. After him his son Ram Charan Lal died in 1901 and then died Ram Charan Lal's son, Budh Singh, in 1924, leaving a widow Mt. Kashmiri. Ram Charan Lal's brother, Kanhaiya Lal, died in 1930, and after him, the said Mt. Kashmiri on 27-8-1911.
(2.) The plaintiff, as would be seen, is a son of the sister of Ram Charan Lal and Kanhaiya Lal, sons of Suraj Prasad, the ancestor aforesaid.
(3.) The plaintiff's case was that Kanhaiya Lal and Ram Charan, the two brothers, were separate from each other, that he was entitled to the half share of Ram Charan after the death of Mt. Kashmiri in whom the property had vested on the death of Budh Singh, her husband, Eon of Ram Charan Lal. His case further was that he was entitled also to the other half share which belonged to Kanhaiya Lal, as the will executed by the latter in favour of Mt. Kashmiri was not valid. So far as this one half share was concerned, there was no mention made is the plaint of any other basis on which the claim was founded. The defendant contested the suit mainly on the ground that Ram Charan and Kanhaiya Lal were joint, the latter being the surviving member of the joint family. He further pleaded that the will executed by Kanhaiya Lal was valid and that it had conferred an absolute title on Mt. Kashmiri who, in her turn, had bequeathed the property to the defendant, More than a year after the suit had been filed and about five months the defence had been filed, the defendant by an amendment of his written statement also pleaded that he was "the nearest reversioner to Kanhaiya Lal and Budh Singh, and even if the plaintiff is considered in the opinion of the Court to he Bandhu he has no right as against this defendant." It may be noted that the will executed by Kanhaiya Lal was dated 2-3-1925, comprising the entire family property and that the same had been dealt with by Kashmiri under a will of her own dated 5-8-1910.