RAM KARAN SINGH Vs. BAIDKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants and the appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with regard to certain properties which once belonged to one Domi Singh. Domi Singh died on 19-1-1919, leaving him surviving a daughter named Gangabati, a daughter's son named Misri Lal and the widow of a predeceased son named Musammat Palto, Misri Lal died in the year 1944, leaving a son Baidka Singh, who was defendant 1 in this action, and Musammat Palto died in the year 1927. The daughter Gangabati is still alive and she was defendant 39 in this action. She had three sons, Satnarain Prasad, Chandrika Prasad and Ranjandan Pra-sad. Satnarain and Chandrika are now dead and Rajanandan is defendant 38.

(2.) After the death of Domi Singh, Misri Lal propounded a will alleged to have been executed by his grandfather Domi in December 1918. He filed an application for letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed in July, 1919. Gangabati entered caveat and later on she filed a regular objection. The case was then converted Into a title suit and it was ultimately disposed of in December, 1930. The District Judge held that the will propounded by Misri Lal was forged document and he dismissed his application for letters of administration. The decision of the District Judge was upheld by this Court in November, 1933. The contention put forward by the plaintiffs was that after the decision of this Court, Ganga-bati, who was the sole heir of her father, surrendered her entire interest to her son, defendant 38, under a deed of surrender dated 26-10-1945. On 39-10-1945 defendant 38 and Gangabati executed A sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the property in suit for a consideration of Rs. 11,996/- and the plaintiffs claim title to the property in suit by virtue of this document. Defendant 1, as already stated, is the son of Misri Lal. De-lendants 2 to 13 are said to have taken usufructuary mortgage from Misri Lal who had come in possession of 8 annas share in the property described in Schedule 1 of the plaint during the pendency of the probate proceeding. Palto Kuer is said to have come in possession of the remaining 8 annas share during the pendency of the probate proceeding. She later on executed a deed of gift in favour of defendant 14 and defendant 22. The other defendants have been impleaded on the allegation that they are in possession of property. One Lakshman Saran Das took possession of the property mentioned in Schedule 2 as a Shebait when the probate proceedings were going on. He died during the pendency of the suit and was succeeded by defendant 37 who is still in possession of the property.

(3.) The defence 'inter alia' was that Misri Lal and others had acquired title by adverse possession. The contention found favour with the learned Subordinate Judge with the result that the suit was dismissed by him. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that by the execution of the deed of surrender after the lady lost her title on account of the adverse possession of Misri Lal and others the reversioners could acquire no interest in the property.