HAR PRASAD Vs. KEWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case relates to the property of two brothers, Dewan and Ranjit. Ranjit died, leaving a widow, Musammat Ganeshi, who died some time in April 1920. Dewan died about six or seven months prior to the suit. The plaintiff claims to be the son of Multan Singh, a brother of Dewan and Ranjit. The defendants claim to be the descendants of Bhai Singh, another brother of Dewan and Ranjit. The parties are Taga Brahmins. The family to which the plaintiff claims to belong used to reside in the village Jaranda. The allegation of the plaintiff was that his father, Multan Singh, had gone to live in the village Rohana and that in his absence Ranjit, Dewan and Bhai Singh got the family property entered in their names, and that after the death of Multan Singh when the plaintiff claimed his share in the family property or inheritance from his father, the defendants satisfied his claim by giving him a money compensation. His complaint was that on the death of Musammat Ganeshi, the widow of Ranjit, and. that of Dewan, the defendants got the entire property belonging to the share of Ranjit and Dewan entered in their names to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The present suit was filed by him for the recovery of a half share of the property left by Ranjit and Dewan with mesne profits.

(2.) The defence was that Laiq Ram and his sons were Taga Brahmins of the Bisa class, that Multan Singh was not the son of Laiq Ram or brother of Bhai Singh, Dewan and Ranjit, that Multan Singh belonged to the Dasa class of Taga Brahmins and was married in that community and that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any share in the property of Ranjit or Dewan deceased.

(3.) The Court below found that Multan Singh was one of the sons of Laiq Ram, that the plaintiff was the son of Multan Singh by a Dasa woman, whom Multan Singh had married, and that as no valid marriage could be effected between a Dasa and a Bisa the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit any share in the estate of his uncles.