LALA MUDDUN GOPAL LAL Vs. MUSSUMAT KHIKHINDA KOER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KISHEN Jewan Lal, who seems to have acquired, or succeeded to, considerable property, moveable and immoveable, was the head of a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law. He died in the year 1835). He left issue three sons, and no more. Kuldip was the eldest, and it is upon his acts and conduct that the question in this case mainly turns. The second son was Madhoram. He died about a year after his father's death, without issue, leaving a widow named Rajbunsi. The third son, Sadhoram, was not more than two or three years old when his father died.

(2.) TWENTY -two years afterwards the position of the family was this: Kuldip was advanced in years. He was apparently a widower, and without issue living, except one daughter, Ram Lochun, and one grandson, the son of that daughter, who was named Biseswar, Rajbunsi was living, and entitled to maintenance under a compromise following litigation and a previous ineffectual compromise. Sadhoram was a widower, and childless; but it appears that he had been deaf and dumb from his birth, and it is found that he was incapable of inheriting or succeeding to property according to Hindu law.

(3.) IN 1882 the Appellant, Muddun Gopal, brought the present suit, By his plaint he made no claim to the estate left by Kuldip, He left over that claim, he said, for another occasion. His case was that Sadhoram survived Kuldip, and that on Sadhoram's death Biseswar illegally took possession under the tamliknama, and he sued for recovery of possession of the property of Sadhoram, whose nearest heir he claimed to be. The Subordinate Court dismissed the suit, having found that Sadhoram was incapable of inheriting, and also that he died before Kuldip. Muddun Gopal appealed to the High Court. The High Court agreed with the Subordinate Court both as to the incapacity of Sadhoram and the survivorship of Kuldip; but for some reason not very apparent, they seem to have thought that Muddun Gopal ought to be permitted to make out his case in some other way if he could; and, accordingly, with the consent of the Respondent, given for some reason which is also not very apparent, they remanded the case to the Subordinate Court, for the trial of certain issues. One of those issues was whether any and what title passed by the tamliknama. Further evidence was taken, and in the result the Subordinate Court held, that though Sadhoram was incompetent to take by inheritance he might take by gift, and that Kuldip, by recognising him as joint owner after his incapacity must have become apparent, had created new title in his favour. Both parties took objections to the finding of the Subordinate Court. On the 12th January, 1887, the High Court pronounced final judgment. As to the legal result of Kuldip's conduct the High Court were of opinion that it had the effect of giving a new and valid title to Sadhoram, either by way of family arrangement or by virtue of the law of limitation. They discussed the effect of the tamliknama, and the effect of Biseswar's possession, which they held to have been exclusive; and they came to the conclusion that the law of limitation ran against Muddun Gopal from Sadhoram's death at the latest, and that the suit was accordingly barred.