RAMANANDAN PROSAD Vs. SHEO PARSON SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents to obtain a declaration that they are "the next reversioners to the estate of the late Babu Bachu Singh accordingly to Hindu law." The defendant 1 party, Ramnandan Pershad Singh, obtained probate of the Will of Bachu Singh about three years after the death of the alleged testator which event took place on the 12 November 1899. The probate proceedings were contested by three sets of caveators of whom the present plaintiffs were the first. The District Judge found that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to oppose the grant, they not being the next reversioners of Bachu Singh, and the Will was thereupon proved without further contest. The decision of the District Judge was on appeal affirmed by this Court (Rampini and Mitra, JJ.,) on the 8th February 1905. The defendant No. 1, Ramnandan, who may be described, as the defendant, claimed to have been adopted by the deceased Bachu Singh so long ago, as the year 1875, and he was called the adopted son or kartaputra of the deceased in the Will of Bachu Singh which bears date the 6 November 1899. The question of adoption, however, was not investigated in the probate case, bat it has assumed importance in the present litigation because the plaintiffs cannot be the next takers if the defendant was adopted by Bachu Singh as recited in his Will.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit. The defendant, who is now represented by his widows, appeals. Four contentions, two of law and two of fact, have been submitted before this Court. It will be convenient to deal with the matters of fact, in the first place; and, to understand the evidence a right, we have set forth the following table of descent:

(3.) The details in the table are admitted by both parties to a considerable extent. The real issue, on the question of the genealogy of the plaintiffs, is whether Bhabey had a son Parmanand, and whether Parmanand was the ancestor of Basti (Basanti). Certain dates and persons are fixed by the suits and proceedings of the years specified in the table (within brackets). Thus in the year 1790, Pheku, the ancestor of Bachu, was the settlement-holder of the family property. If Bhabey had a son, Parmanand, the latter must have been born about the beginning of the 18 Century. One hundred years later in the year 1816, there was a suit by "Basti and other against Pershad and Gayani in which the genealogy now relied on by the plaintiffs was set up by Basti and his party in support of their claim to share of the family taluk Narman. That genealogy was not expressly denied by Pershad and Gayani but the suit failed on the plea of adverse possession. The judgment is as follows: Whereas the plaintiffs have set up their claim to their share on the basis of the genealogical tree and the defendants deny their claim. In the course of hearing, the plaintiffs adduced three witnesses to wit, Sri Kishan, Sheodyal Singh, and Chatur Narain. Although the said witnesses have stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants are related to each other as cousins, but from their evidence it has not been proved that the plaintiffs were ever in possession of their share. No witness deposed as to his personal know ledge of the extent of the share of the plaintiff s. From the plaint also it appears that the plaintiffs are very distantly related to the defendants. Such being the case, I do not believe the plaintiff's case. Therefore, it is ordered that the suit be dismissed and struck off from the file and the under-mentioned costs be charged to the plaintiffs."