RAMBARAN RAI Vs. BAUSU RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following pedigree will show the relationship of the members of the family:

(2.) The facts or the case are as follows: On the death of Ramesar Rai, his widow Musammat Batasi applied for mutation of names in her favour in respect of the zamindary and sir. The application was resisted by the sons of Ram Niranjan Rai. Musammat Batasi and the sons of Ram Niranjan Rai entered into a compromise which is dated the 21 August 1876, whereby the zamindary property was put into the possession of the objectors and the sir comprising 21 bighas, 8 biswas and 9 dhurs with some other property and dues was retained by Musammat Batasi. Musammat Batasi was to hold possession of the said sir like her husband free of rent and her name was to appear in the revenue papers as an owner. The agreement further provided that Musammat Batasi would have no right to transfer the property or to raise a debt on it and that the objectors after the death of Musammat Batasi and Musammat Ureha would take possession of the said sir. After the above compromise, a partition took place amongst the objectors on the 17 of May 1900 and out of the above sir 10 bighas were allotted to Daulat and Ram Baran and the remainder to the other members of the family. The finding of the lower appellate "Court is that Musammat Batasi was alive on the 17 May 1900 and that she died in 1902.

(3.) After the death of Musammat Batasi, Musammat Jamna, daughter-in-law of Daulat, took possession of the two plots in suit, that is, Nos. 989/1 and 989/3 and gave a lease of those plots to the defendants Bansu, Mahadeo and Dwarka.