KASHI RAM Vs. MUSAMMAT AMRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of property which formerly belonged to one Gangadan.

(2.) Gangadan was one of the two sons of Salig Ram, Sheo Lal being the other. Gargadan had a son named Khushal Ram, who died in his father's life-time, leaving a widow Musammat Ishri, him surviving. The other son of Salig Ram, namely, Sheo Lal, had a son named Narain Das and his wife was one Musammat Amri, a defendant in the suit. Gangadan died in the year 1882 or 1883 leaving his daughter-in-law Musammat Ishri him surviving, who upon his death entered into possession of his property and continued in, possession until the year 1899 when she died.

(3.) It has been found by the Court below, and there is no controversy as to this, that Musnnmat Ishri acquired an absolute title to tb 3 property of Gangadan by adverse possession. The plaintiffs claiming to be the nearest reversionary heirs of Musammat Ishri instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of possession of the property. The Court below has dismissed their claim on three grounds. First of all the Court held that the suit was barred by limitation, it not having been brought within 12 years from the death of Gangadan. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff's claim was as reversionary heirs of Gangadan for the recovery of his property but upon a perusal of the plaint it will be seen that their claim was not based on their heirship to Gangadan but on their heir-ship to Musummat Ishri. In the third paragraph of their plaint the plaintiffs say that they are the heirs and next reversioners of Mussammat Ishri and are entitled to the possession, of the property in dispute. Musammat Ishri having acquired title by adverse possession it passed upon her death to her heirs, whoever they may be, as her stridhan. She died in 1899 and the present suit was instituted on the 8 of May 1906, that is, within the period of 12 years. The learned Subordinate Judge thinks that property acquired by a female by adverse possession is not her stridhan but this is contrary to the views expressed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Brij Indar Bahadur Singh V/s. Rani Janki Koer 5 I. A. 1; 1 C. L. R. 318 and also contrary to the decision in Mohin Chander Sangal V/s. Kashi Kant Sanyal 2 C. W. N. 161 (see also the decision of this Bench in the case of Balwaut singh V/s. Musammat Ram Dei, Second Appeal No 414 of 1905, decided on the 7 of December 1906, which has not been reported). It is clear upon the authorities that property so acquired by a female is her stridhan and as such stridhan passes to her heirs.