SHANKERPAL SINGH Vs. HARI SHANKER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been heard together. They arise out of three suits in which the parties were the same and the facts were also similar.

(2.) ONE Srimati Chaurasa Kunwar died on 1-11-1944 possessed of certain under-proprietary and occupancy holding plots. The plaintiffs claiming to be the nearest reversioners instituted three different suits, as the plots were situate in three different mohals, against the defendants on the allegations that the property had passed to the plaintiffs and the defendants had taken unlawful possession of the plots in collusion with the zamindars who were also impleaded as defendants in these suits. It was alleged on behalf of the plaintiffs that Srimati Chaurasa Kunwar had inherited the property as a limited heir from her son, Jagdamba Singh, who died issueless.

(3.) THE main contesting defendants who are the appellants in this case contested the suits mainly on the ground that they had been holding the property in their own right and that the suit was not maintainable under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. They further alleged that Srimati Chaurasa kunwar had acquired full proprietary rights by adverse possession in the property to suit and that the defendants being her nephews, were entitled to succeed to her property on her death. Some of the defendants other than those who are appellants in the present appeals also raised a plea that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34, Sub-section (5), U. P. Land Revenue Act. It was also denied by the defendants that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversioners to the estate.