KAMALA PRASAD Vs. MURLI MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur in which he decided against the plaintiff's contention that he was the adopted son of one Mt. Lalbati Kuer and that alternatively under the Mithila law he was the heir of the lady being the son of her sister. One Sheoratan Lal died on 30 March 1887 leaving him surviving his widow Mt. Lachho Kuer and two daughters-in-law, Mt. Ramdeni Kuer and Mt. Lalbati Kuer. Sheoratan Lal left a will by which he devised an absolute estate to his widow and daughters-in-law with a right of survivorship with a proviso that in the case of the death of all of them Murli Manohar the son of one Ramcharan Lal the testator's nephew or brother's son should be his heir and successor. The widow survived her husband but a few days, then Ramdeni Kuer died and lastly after being in possession of the property for about 12 years Lalbati Kuer died.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly construed the will in the events which have happened as giving an absolute estate in the property to Lalbati Kuer, which on her death would go to her heir. No question on this point has been seriously argued in this Court. The plaintiff-appellant being the son of the sister of Lalbati Kuer claims to be the heir under the Mithila law which admittedly governs the parties, relying on the text of Brahspati, and in any event claims the property as being the adopted son in the Kritima form of Lalbati Kuer. Both of these points have been decided against the plaintiff by the learned Judge in the Court below.

(3.) A question was raised as regards the properties in suit. Properties 1 to 8 of Seh. 1 and Nos. 1 to 4 of Schedule 2, admittedly belonged to Sheoratan Lal and were covered by the will. As regards Property No. 9, Schedule 1, and Property No. 5, Schedule 2, the Judge has held that they were the self acquired properties of the widow Ramdeni Kuer and that eventually they became the stridhan properties of Lalbati Kuer. No question is raised with regard to this matter. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was the son of the sister of Lalbati Kuer, and he claims to have been adopted by Lalbati Kuer on 24 April 1921. She died a few months later, that is to say in October of the same year.