BISHUNATH OJHA Vs. SHEOPRAGASH OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this Second Appeal is whether a certain petition filed in the Revenue Court on 22 December, 1914 in a mutation proceeding is admissible in evidence, and, if so, whether it gives the appellant the property which he claims.

(2.) The question has to be decided with reference to the peculiar facts of this case, having regard, of course, to the principles laid down in various cases by this High Court.

(3.) It appears that on the death of Musammat Udha, the widow of one Monohar Ojha, certain persons, including the appellant, claimed title. Applications were made in the Revenue Court. It does not appear clearly on what ground the present appellant claimed. The compromise in question was filed. This compromise will be examined later on. It will be sufficient here to mention that by this compromise the parties to it aeked the Revenue Court to record the names of themselves in certain shares. An order was made in accordance with the compromise. But it appears from the statement of facts made in the plaint that this order was set aside by a Court of appeal on the ground that the persons actually in possession were the Maharaja of Dumraon and another. Some of the defendants in this suit instituted a suit in the Civil Court for the ejectment of the Maharaja of Dumraon and others with respect to the property which belonged to Musammat Udha. That suit succeeded and on foot of the decree mutation orders were passed in favour of the contesting defendants. This fact constituted the cause of action of the plaintiff- appellant and he brought the suit for mainten ance of possession.