JOGENDRA SINGH BAHADUR Vs. B BALBHADDAR NARAIN MALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this First Appeal arises relates to the estate, known as Majhauli Raj. The pedigree which has been found as substantially correct and is not assailed by the parties in this appeal is annexed hereto.

(2.) RANI Shyam Sunder Kunwar, widow of Raja Kaushal Kishore Mall was admittedly in possession of the properties in suit till her death on 28th of July, 1937. On her death, possession was taken by Bal-bhaddar Mall, a descendant of Anand Mall's branch. Regular Suit No. 41 of 1940 which is the subject-matter of this appeal was filed by Maharani Chandrika Prasad Kunwar, mother-in-law of Rani Shyam Sunder Kun- war, for possession with the allegation that she was the rightful heir and entitled to succeed. Regular Suit No. 33 of 1941 was filed by Pratap Kishore Mill for possession of the estate claiming himself as adopted son of Rani Shyam Sunder Kunwar. Both the suits were disposed of by one judg ment. The claim of Pratap Kishore Mall as adopted son of Rani Shyam Sunder Kunwar was negatived by the trial Court and no appeal has been filed against the decree. During the pendency of regular suit No. 41 of 1940 Maharani Chandrika Prasad Kunwar died and was substituted by her daughter Rani Girraj Prasad Kunwar. On the death of Rani Girraj Prasad Kunwar, the appel lants who are the sons of Rani Girraj Prasad Kunwar were substituted as her heirs and legal representatives. The suit related to the properties given in Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, O, of the plaint The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in respect of properties given in Schedules A to H, but was decreed in respect of the house mentioned in Schedule K and the moveables mentioned in Schedules K, N and O. The moveables of Schedule O were limited to those which were in the safe custody of the Imperial Bank of India, Banaras and the articles of list 'N' was confined to list of articles given in Ext. A-94. The plain tiff and the defendants were to pay costs in the proportion of 1/15 and 14/15.

(3.) THE plaintiffs' case was that Raja Kaushal Kishore Mall, the last male holder belonged to Bissen Kshatriya family. It was alleged that the succession was gov erned by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law but the females were not excluded from inheritance. Rani Bakt Kuer was said to have succeeded on the death of her husband Raja Bhim Mall and Rani Dilraj Kuer was said to have succeeded on the death of Raja Ajit Mall. It was further stated that sometime after 1210 Fasli while Raja Ajit Mall was in possession the entire property was confiscated by the East India Company for an act of rebellion and was settled with Rani Dilraj Kuer. The rule of male lineal succession, if any, therefore, came to an end with the confiscation of the estate. The list of the property which was said to have been resettled is given in Schedule 'A' to the plaint.