SHEOJEE TIWARY Vs. PREMA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the two plaintiffs, the correctness of a genealogy, according to which the plaintiffs claimed true to the properties mentioned in the two Schedules A and B given in the plaint and asked for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits, is in question.

(2.) One Siaram Tewarj had three sons Padaratn, Ramchandar and Gangaram. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 belong to the last branch, defendants 1 and 2 to the branch of Padarath and the other defendants, defendants 3 to 20 being to Ram Chandar's line. The plaintiffs' genealogy as given in the plaint and reproduced in the judgment may be briefly indicated to show the nature of contest between the parries. Padarath Tewari had three sons Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar. They became separate in status between 1909 and 1911. The survey settlement operations were completed in the said villages by 1912. Ramratan had two sons Rajbhukhan and Roshan. Rajbhukhan died in 1946 and Roshan had died in 1928-29 and defendant No. 1, Manbirta was his widow. Nauratan had a son Lawat who died in 1916. Nauratan died in 1920. Ramcharitar died issueless in 1954. Defendant No. 2, Prema was the widow of Lawat. Plaintiffs asserted that after there was separation in status between Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar the latter two reunited and sometime after the re-union there was a partition by metes and bounds of the properties Belonging to the three branches, and in that partition schedule A of the properties was allotted to Ramratan, and schedule B properties jointly to Nauratan and Ramcharitar. On the death of Nauratan in 1920, his son having predeceased him, Ramcharitar alone succeeded by survivorship to the whole or the B schedule properties. When Ramratan died in 1921-22, his two sons Rajbhukhan and Roshan came in possession of Schedule A as surviving coparceners. On Roshan's death, Rajbhukhan became the sole surviving coparcener and Roshan's widow Manbirta, defendant No. 1, was entitled to maintenance. Defendant No. 2, Prema, widow of the predeceased son of Nauratan, was similarly entitled, when Ramcharitar succeeded to B schedule as the sole surviving coparcener. On the death of Rajbhukhan in 1946, Ramcharitar succeeded to his estate Schedule A in 1946-4/. Thus he became legal owner to both Schedules A and B propertied But he could not take possession of Schedule A on the death of Rajbhukhan as he was then in Patna under treatment and became afflicted by paralysis. Defendant No. 1, Roshan's widow cams in possession of that. When Kamcharitar himself died in 1954, defendant No. 2, widow of predeceased son of Nauratan (deceased brother of Ramcharitar) took possession of B schedule properties. Plain" tiffs claimed that as Ramcharitar was the legal owner or both A and B as stated above, on his death, his nearest feversioners were to succeed to his estate and plaintiff No. 1 and the father of the plaintiff No. 2 were the only two such persons. Defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to maintenance only and had no legal right to any of the properties. Other defendants including defendants 3 and 4 are remote reversioner and could not be entitled to the suit properties in preference to the plaintiffs. To indicate the relative nearness of the plaintiffs to the common ancestor Siaram Tewari, plaintiffs stated that Siaram's third son Gangaram had two sons Imrit and Jeobodh. One of Imrit's son was Ramkawal and his son was Sheoji, plaintiff No. 1. Jeobodh had a son Sital whose son was Ramraj and Ramraj who had three sons including plaintiff No. 2, Bachan, was surviving at the time of the death of Ramcharitar. Thus in the branch of Gangaram Tewari, plaintiff No. 1 and Ramraj, father of plaintiff No. 2, were the only two surviving members and they were in fifth degree to the common ancestor Siaram. I have said that defendants 3 to 20 belong to Ramchandar's branch and admittedly all of them, except defendants 3 and 4, are lower in degree to defendants 3 and 4, and those two defendants, according to the plaintiffs were in the sixth degree to Siaram in 1954 when Ramcharitar died. They pointed out that Siaram's son Ramchandar had one son Agam whose two sons were Nidha and Bakhori. Nidha's son Shamsundar had three sons of whom Sheopukar and Jeopukar, defendants 3 and 4, were two. Bakhori's son was Ramsundar who had three sons Rajeshwar, Sablaik and Nandram (defendant No. 5). Rajeshwars sons are defendants 6 and 7 and Nandram's son is defendants No. 16. Of the other defendants, defendants B to 10 are we sons of defendant No. 3, defendants 11 to 14 are sons of defendant No. 4, defendant No. 15 is son of defendant No. 11, defendant No. 16 is son of defendant No. 5, defendant No. 17 is son of defendant No. 16, defendants 18 and 19 are sons of defendant No. / and defendant No. 20 is son of defendant No. 18, thus the sole basis of the plaintiffs' claim to schedules A and B properties was that Ramcharitar had succeeded to those properties and on ins death plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2 succeeded to the same as nearest reversioners. They claimed possession from defendants 1 and 2 through the suit. Those two ladies have, however, died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court and applications from the plaintiffs side as well as from the side of the contesting defendants have been made for their substitution in the place of those two ladies. Assuming that the ladies had succeeded to or later became the absolute owners of the suit properties, they having died without any son or daughter, succession from them will devolve upon those of the present parties who may be found as nearest reversionary heirs to their husbands.

(3.) As I said before, the real contest to the plaintiffs case was from, defendants 3 and 4 who filed a written statement setting up another genealogy by which they were shown to be the nearer reversioners than plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff No. 2. According to them, Siaram had three sons Ramchandar (or Ramcharan) Gangaram and Bhawani Shankar. Bhawani had two sons Manbodh and Jeobodh. Manbodh's son was Imrit whose son was Ramkawai who was father of Seoji, plaintiff No. 1. Jeobodh had a son Ganaur by name. One of the two sons of the latter was Sital. Sital's son was Ramraj and plaintiff No. 2, Bachan, is his son. Thus plaintiff No. 1 is related in the sixth degree to the common ancestor Siaram Tewari and so also was the father of plaintiff No. 2. About their own position in the genealogy they said that Siaram's son Ramcharan had sons including Bakhori, Nidha and Agam. Nidha's son was Shamsundar and his sons were defendants 3 and 4, Sheopukar and Jeopukar. They were thus in the fifth degree from Siaram, and, therefore, nearer reversioners than the plaintiffs. About the position of defendant No. 5, they showed that Bakhori had a son Ramsundar whose son was Nandram, defendant No. 5. He was similarly in the fifth degree to Siaram. About defendants 1 and 2, they showed them in the branch of Gangaram whose two sons were Liladhar and Padarath. Padarath's sons were Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar. Ramratan's two sons were Rajbhukhan and Roshan. Nauratan's son was Lawat. Defendants 1 and 2 were respectively the widows of Roshan and Lawat. These two defendants denied any re-union between Nauratan and Ramcharitar. They claimed that all the three brothers (sons of Padarath) Ramratan, Nauratan and Ramcharitar were separate from each other and Lawat succeeded to Nauratan. On Lawat's death defendant No. 2 came m possession of his properties. Similarly on Rajbhukhan's death, defendant No. 1 came in possession of his properties and her possession was for over 12 years before the suit. About the properties belonging to Ramcharitar, they stated that he gifted them to Rajbhukhan and Prema, defendant No. 2, and that is why the whole of the suit properties came in possession of defendants 1 and 2.