RAMRUP PANDE Vs. SARJU PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals Nos. 986 and 987 of 1923 arise from similar circumstances, the only difference being that in one case the property in dispute is zamindari property and in the other case it is a tenancy.

(2.) One Kanhaiya had six sons, one of these being Ramjas. The respondents in these appeals, who were the plaintiffs in the Court of first instance, are sons of Ramjas. They are suing to recover a sixth share in the property left by their grandfather Kanhaiya. It has been found as a matter of fact, that Kanhaiya died separate from his sons and grandsons. The question raised is whether Kanhaiya's property would go only to his sons or also to his grandsons by a deceased son.

(3.) So far as zamindari property is concerned it is conceded that the defendants- appellants have no case. The property is bound to be divided into six shares and one share must go to the sons of Kanhaiya's deceased son Ramjas.