GANESH SAHI Vs. RAMDENI SAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment. The facts out of which these appeals arise are these. The plaintiffs, who are respondents before me, brought the suit for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of about 7 acres of land in village Tari. The case of the respondents was that they inherited the property as the nearest reversionary heirs of one Deoki Sahi, after the death of the latter's widow, Musammat Deorachala Kuer, in 1945. According to the respondents, one Kishun Sahi, the common ancestor, had seven sons. They separated some time before the cadastral survey and the branches of four of the sons became extinct. The three sons whose descendants are still living were Adhar Sahi, Darap Sahi and Raghubar Sahi. The present respondents and defendants 2 to 6 were descendants of the branch of Darap Sahi. Defendants 1, 7 and 8, who are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 1185 of 1951, are descendants of the branch of Adhar Sahi. Deoki Sahi was the last male holder in the branch of Raghubar Sahi. Deoki died leaving his widow Musammat Deorachala Kuer. Musammat Deorachala Kuer died in 1945. The respondents succeeded to the property, being the nearest reversioners of Deoki Sahi, the other descendants of the two surviving branches being lower in degree than the respondents. This, in brief, was the case of the respondents. The case of the appellants of Second Appeal No. 1185 of 1951 was that Kishun Sahi had only six sons and not seven. It was alleged that Adhar and Raghubar were not two different sons of Kishun but were two names of one son. The appellants, who belonged to the branch of Adhar, 'alias' Raghubar, said that they were the nearest heirs of Deoki Sahi, who belonged to their branch.

(2.) Another defendant, defendant No. 9, who intervened in the suit, claimed that she was the daughter of Deoki & was coming in possession of the properties left by the widow, who was her mother. The respondents alleged that defendant No. 9 was not the daughter of Deoki but she was the daughter of one Kali Sahi, father of defendant No. 1; in other words, she was the sister of defendant No. 1.

(3.) Two important questions fell for decision in the courts below. The first question was if Kishun Sahi had six sons or seven sons; that is, if Adhar and Raghubar were the two names of the same person. The other question was if defendant No. 9 was the daughter of Deoki Sahi. The learned Munsif, who dealt with the suit in the first instance, held that Adhar and Raghubar were one and the same person; therefore, the appellants of Second Appeal No. 1185 of 1951 belonged to the same branch as Deoki Sahi. He further found that defendant No. 9, Sheomangala Kuer. was the daughter of Deoki Sahi by his wife Musammat Deorachala Kuer. On these two main findings the learned Munsif dismissed the suit of the respondents. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, reversed the findings of the learned Munsif. The learned Subordinate Judge held that after the extinction of the branches of four of the sons of Kishun Sahi, there remained three separate branches, namely, the branches of Adhar, Darap and Raghubar, each one of these being separate from the other. Therefore, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge was that Adhar and Raghubar were two separate brothers and the respondents were the nearest heirs of Decki Sahi. The learned Subordinate Judge further held that Sheomangala Kuer was not the daughter of Deoki Sahi by his wife Musammat Deorachala Kuer; rather she was the daughter of Kali Sahi and sister of defendant No. 1. On these findings the learned Subordinate Judge gave a decree to the respondents.