JOGES CHANDRA KHASNAVIS Vs. PRASANNA KUMAR MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decision and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Mymensingh, dated 25 June 1928, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for declaration of their title to a one-sixth share in the properties mentioned in the two schedules of the plaint, and for recovery of possession of the same; as also for mesne profits as claimed in the suit.

(2.) The history of the litigation which has culminated in the present suit is of a complicated nature, and so far as the materials on the record go, the dispute between the parties concerned and their predecessors-in-interest, relates back to the year 1862. A genealogy which shows the relationship of the parties, as also the relevant dates on which some of the predecessors-in-title of the parties to the suit died is given below:

(3.) Plaintiffs, three in number, are the sons of Kotiswar Khasnavis, who had married Gangamani, one of the daughters of Raj Kishore Majumdar, who as a member of a joint Hindu family, owned the property described in Schedule 1, along with his two brothers Chandra Kishore and Chandi Prosad, each of the three brothers owning an one-third share. Of the brothers, Chandi Prosad died intestate in 1256 B. S. (1849-50), leaving his widow Gourmani It is Chandi Prosad's share of the property which has been the bone of contention or the apple of discord between Raj Kishore's branch, now represented by the three plaintiffs, and the branch of the family of Chandra Kishore, now represented by the defendants, nine in number. There is no dispute as to the devolution of the shares in the property inherited from Raj Kishore and Chandra Kishore; and we have for the purpose of the present case to consider the devolution and disposition of the share of Chandi Prosad, which was inherited by his widow Gourmani after his demise.