KAULESHWARI KUER Vs. SURAJNATH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal arising out of a suit for possession with mesne profits. The following pedigree will show the relationship between the parties: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_456_AIR(PAT)_1957Html1.htm</FRM> The disputed property forms part of the estate of Baldeo Rai deceased. Baldeo Rai was the descendant of Chhatan Rai. The defendants are the descendants of Ajgaibi Rai, full-brother of Chhatan Rai, Both the branches of the family were separate in mess and" property, and Raldeo Rai was the sole surviving member in the joint family of Chhatan Rai, which was possessed of 24 bighas 17 kathas 3 dhurs of Kasht land, and some zamindary property. Baldeo Rai had no son, and there is no dispute that on his death the respondents would have succeeded to his estate. But it appears that sometime before 1905 Baldeo Rai adopted Janki Rai (plaintiff since deceased) as his son and got all his properties mutated, in the name of his adopted son. Ramjatan Rai, the ancestor of the defehdants instituted a title suit No. 68 of 1905, for a declaration that Janki Rai had not been taken in adoption by Baldeo Rai, that the adoption was not legal and valid and that his right to succeed to the properties of Baldeo Rai, on the latter's death, was not at all affected. The suit was eventually compromised and a consent decree was passed incorporating the terms of the compromise. Under this compromise Ramjatan Rai obtained 8 bighas out of the kasht land and half of -/1/6 proprietary share. He was, however, not given right to immediate possession of the property given to him. The compromise decree provided that Baldeo Rai and his wife would remain in possession of the entire property for there life and Ramjatan Kai: would be entitled to enter into possession of the land, given to him only after their death. Baldea Rai died in" 1930, and his widow died in 1347 (corresponding to 1940). On her death, a dispute arose between Janki Rai, the adopted son of Baldeo Rai, and the defendants about possession of the property covered by the compromise decree. This led to the initiation of a proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal P. C., which ended in a compromise on 12-12-40. By this compromise the sons of Ramjatan Rai were permitted to enter into possession of the land given to him under the compromise decree of 1905. It is this land which forms the subject-matter of the present litigation. On 17-2-1943, Janki Rai raised this action to re- -cover possession of the property in the hands of the respondents. His case was that the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 68 of 1905 was illegal and invalid and did not confer any title on Ram-jatan Rai and his descendants, because it was void both for want of consideration and want of registration. His further case was that the compromise in the proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal P. C. was brought about by coercion and did not operate as estoppel a'gainst him. Janki Rai died during the pendency of the suit, and his widow, Mst. Kauleshwari Kuer, and his two sons, Dudhnath Rai and Sukhdeo Rai, were substituted in his place; they are the present appellants.

(2.) The defence was that Janki Rai was not the adopted son of Baldeo Rai, that the disputed property had been given to the defendants by virtue of the consent decree of 1905 and that they had acquired a good title to the disputed land and were entitled in, law to retain possession of the same,

(3.) I may mention here that Mahesh Rai and Brahmdeo Rai, nephews of Ramjatan Rai deceased, had instituted another title suit against Janki Rai impleading also the sons and grandsons of Ramjatan Rai as defendants for a declaration that Janki Rai was not the adopted son of Baldeo Rai and that they were entitle to two-third share of the properties of Baldeo Rai.