RAM BAHADUR Vs. BAHADUR SINGH AND SRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a very difficult question of law and I have arrived at my decision with some hesitation. The facts are as follows: One Salig Ram died in 1905, leaving him surviving two daughters only, Musammats Krishna Kuar and Ilaichi Kuar. It is stated that ho had separated in 1891 from Eaghunath and Bal Gobind, his first cousins, who were brothers, and that Eaghunath separated from Bal Gobind in 1895. On the death of Salig Bam in 1905 disputes arose as to the succession of his property. What exactly those disputes were is not established by any evidence on the record, but this much is certain that on the 22nd of September, 1905, about a month sifter the death of Salig Ram, an agreement in writing was entered into between Bal Gobind, Eaghunath and the two daughters of Salig Ram as to the division of the property left by Salig Ram. That document was executed by all four and is in the following terms: The aforesaid property left by Salig Bam has devolved upon us, the executants, in equal shares by right of inheritance. Besides us there is no-other claimant of the property of tho said deceased. Now we, all the four parties, have, with our mutual consent, divided the property left by the said deceased in equal, shares.... All the four parties shall remain in separate possession and shall be the exclusive owners thereof. Bach party may have his own share separately partitioned and one party will have no objection as against the other.

(2.) This agreement was given effect to and mutation of names was made accordingly, that is to say, Musammat Ilaichi Kuar, Musammat Krishna Kuar, Eaghunath and Bal Gobind each took possession of a separate one-fourth share and dealt with it as their own exclusive property. Thus we find that Eaghunath Prasad sold his share and he is no party to this litigation, nor are his transferees; and on the death of Bal Gobind, in 1906, his three sons, Sri Ram, Babu Bahadur Singh and Ram Charan, defendants Nos. 1--3, obtained mutation of nain.es in respect of the fourth share which Bal Gobind had acquired under the agreement and have been in possession of it ever since. This position of affairs lasted until the 7 of February, 1920, when Musammat Krishna Kuar died without issue. Thereupon a dispute arose in the mutation department between the plaintiff Lala Ram Bahadur, the husband of Musammat Krishna Kuar deceased, her sister liaichi Kuar and the three sons of Bal Gobind, namely Sri Kara, Babu Bahadur Singh and Ram Charan, for the entry of their names, respectively, in the place of that of Musammat Krishna Kuar with respect to her one-fourth share. The revenue court directed the entry of each set of claimants over one-third of the property left by Musammat Krishna Kuar, that is to say, it decided that Ram Bahadur was entitled to one-third, Musammat liaichi Kuar to one-third and the three son1:; of Bal Gobind to one-third.

(3.) This suit was brought by Lala Ram Bahadur to recover the two thirds share which was entered in the names of Musammat liaichi Kuar and the defendants Nos. 1--3. He based his claim on the allegation that under the compromise of the 22nd of September, 1905, his wife became absolute owner of one-fourth of the property left by her father Salig Ram, and that it became her stridhan and, on her death without issue, lie succeeded to it; he was the next heir and, as such, entitled to the property.