RAMKHELAWAN SINGH Vs. LALJI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Letters Patent Appeals, which arise out of Second Appeals Nos. 951 and 1607, which arose out of Title suit No. 3/14 of 1946-1945, are against the decision of Mr. Justice B. N. Rai, who allowed only Second Appeal No. 951 of 1949 in part, and, set aside the decree passed in Title Appeal No, 105 of 1948, and, modified the decree passed in the suit.

(2.) ONE Achambhit Rai had two sons, namely, Baudh Rai and Ramsaran Rai, Baudh Rai had two sons, named Jaikishun Rai, defendant No. 1, and Ramkishun Rai. Jaikishun Rai had a son Lalji Rai, defendant No. 2, respondent No. 1. The other respondents are the sons of Lalji Rai. Ramsaran Rai had two sons, Rajnath Rai and Deonath Rai. Rajnath Rai died issueless leaving behind his widow, Parbati Kuer, who also died subsequently. Deonath Rai died leaving behind a son Askrit Rai.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. THE defence, so far as it is material, for the purpose of the present appeals, was that the genealogy set up by the plaintiff was wrong, and, that the suit was barred by limitation, because neither Askrit Rai, the vendor, nor, the vendee, the original plaintiff, had ever been in possession of the properties in suit within twelve years of the suit.