ARJUN SINGH Vs. VIRENDRA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession in respect of four shops and one third share in a house situate in Agra and for mesne profits. The following pedigree, which is not in dispute, will be of help in a proper ap preciation of the facts of the case: (See pedigree on next page) It would be seen that Dal Chand had a son, Damodardas, and two daughters, Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Chameli. The case of the plaintiff, Arjun Singh, is that the property in suit was owned ex clusively by Dal Chand and upon his death, which took place in August 1914, it devolved upon his two daugthers be cause his son had predeceased him. Both the daughters, according to the plaintiff, were Pardahnashin ladies and they had been married outside Agra. The pro perty was, therefore, being managed by Pannalal and Nathilal, nephews of Dalchand, on behalf of the two daughters It has further been alleged that under an agreement, dated September 2. 1914 the rent of the shops in suit, which were all in the occupation of ten ants, used to be realised by Pannalal and Nathilal as agents of Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Chameli but the said agreement is not binding on the plaintiff. Smt. Kalawati is said to have died in 1925 and Smt. Chameli on April 30, 1944 and the plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the property after Smt. Chameli's death. It has also been stated by the plaintiff that Pannalal and Nathilal and, after their death, Pannalal's sons, Virendra Nath defendant No. 1 and Brijendra Nath defendant No. 2, had been rendering some slipshod accounts of the realisa tions made by them from the tenants and paying some petty amounts to Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Chameli but since the death of the two daughters the defendants had only been postponing settlement of accounts and, finally, they refused to hand over actual possession of the property in suit to the plaintiff. This state of thing is said to have compelled the plaintiff to institute the suit.

(2.) THE claim of the plaintiff has been contested by both the defendants. Defendant No. 2 has pleaded that the plaintiff is not the son of Smt. Chameli but of the second wife of Ranchhordas whom the latter married after the death of Smt. Chameli which took place in 1926, that Damodardas, who predeceased his father Dal Chand, had given direc tion to his wife to adopt a son and this direction was confirmed by Dal Chand; and that under the authority to adopt given to Smt. Pushpawati she duly ad opted Brijendra Nath defendant No. 2 as a son to her deceased husband. He has also raised pleas of estoppel, acquie scence and limitation- The allegation of the plaintiff regarding Pannalal and Nathi Lal having been in possession as agents has been repudiated and it has been asserted that Brijendra Nath defen dant No. 2 has been in possession for over 35 years as owner. In the alter native it has been contended that Dal Chand died as a member of joint Hindu family and the property in suit was joint family property, with the result that after the death of Dal Chand it passed to the other coparceners by sur vivorship and the plaintiff has no title to it.