ASHARAM SADHANI Vs. CHANDI CHURN MUKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not think we should, under the rules governing second appeals, interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by the lower appellate Court in these cases, although we might wish to maintain. possession which has existed from the year 1871 and although the present defendants are in one sense bona fide purchasers for value. Bat they claim title under, amongst others, an instrument dated the 14 January 1871 in which three of the parties were Hindu females, Mayabati, Nitya Kali and Durga Mani and they ought to have been cautious in making purchases.

(2.) The plaintiff is admittedly one of the next takers after the death of Durga Mani of the estate left by her son Ashutosh. He is, on the findings arrived at by the lower Courts, not barred by any rule as to the limitation of suits. The only question is--Is he bound by the terms of the instrument of the 14 January 1871?

(3.) Two contentions have been raised before us. The first is that Mati Sundari, the daughter of Durga Mani, had no son living at the date of the instrument and, therefore, the transaction evidenced by it was one between Durga Mani and the then next reversioner Kesab Chandra and would, therefore, be binding on the plaintiff. The finding of fact, however, of the lower appellate Court is that it was not only not shown that Mati Sundari had no son at the time but that there was every reason to suppose that she had. It is admitted before us that we cannot set aside the finding except on the ground that the lower Court ought to have allowed the defendants an opportunity of adducing fresh evidence on the point. But no foundation was laid for such indulgence and we cannot allow the prayer for leave to adduce farther evidence in support of the contention raised.