SMT SARJU BAI Vs. CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for possession of a certain plot No. 332/677, as being within her zamindari in mauza Civil Jhansi, was decreed by the Court of first instance but dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The defendants are the Municipal Board of Jhansi and the Secretary of State. The defence was firstly one of title claiming that the plot was nazul land, which has been held by both the lower Courts to fail. The second line of defence was title by adverse possession. An issue was framed on this point, issue No. 3, and decided in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court and in favour of the defendant by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff set up a pedigree which has been accepted by the Courts below, and is as follows:

(2.) The estate which is a large zamindari estate of Bijai Earn was held after him by his son Har Lal and after Har Lal by his son Raghubir Sahai, who died about the year 1900. His widow, Mt. Kesar Bai, held the estate as a limited owner for a short time, and on her death the estate was held by Mt. Radha Bai, mother of the last male-holder, also as a limited owner, and Mt. Radha Bai died on 27 November 1932. After the death of Mt. Radha Bai a question arose as to whether the plaintiff or her grandmother should hold the estate and by a document drawn up on 6th March 1933 it was agreed that the plaintiff should hold the estate as a limited owner. Now the plaint in para. 3 stated: Srimati Radha Bai died on the 27 November 1932. The plaintiff is her daughter and she had no heir other than the plaintiff for the question of inheritance has already been decided under a document dated the 6th and registered on the 9 March 1933.

(3.) There is no doubt that this description of the plaintiff as the heir of her mother is inaccurate and the plaintiff is really a reversioner of the last male holder Raghubir Sahai who succeeded her mother Mt. Radha Bai who had only a limited interest as a Hindu mother. The written statement did not admit anything more in this pleading than that the plaintiff's mother died and that the plaintiff was her daughter. Consequently an issue was framed, No. 2, whether the plaintiff was entitled to sue, and on that issue the trial Court set out the succession indicated, but ended up by saying: The plaintiff being the daughter and heir of her mother is therefore entitled to sue.