SASI BHUSAN MALLICK Vs. SADANANDA MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiffs sued for recovery of possession of on declaration of their title to certain bastu land. Their allegation was that the disputed homestead belonged to one Mati Lal Mallick who died some years ago leaving Monmohini as his widow and heir. Monmohini died in 1912, and then, according to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs father Muchiram who was the nearest reversionary heir of Motilal succeeded to the property in suit. The defendants, however, kept the plaintiffs out of possession and hence the suit.

(2.) The defence was that the disputed homestead did not belong to Mati Lal and secondly that Muchiram was not the nearest reversionary heir of Matilal, because Jadab Charan, the ancestor of Muchiram, having been adopted by one Baisnab Charan, the plaintiffs father Muchiram was not the nearest reversioner but the defendants father was.

(3.) The suit was tried in both the Courts on the issue whether Jadab Charan was or was not adopted by Baisnab Charan, apparently both the parties agreeing that if Jadab Charan had been adopted by Baisnab. Charan then the plaintiffs father was not the nearest reversioner.