RAKHALRAJ MONDAL Vs. DEBENDRA NATH MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are from the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Murshidabad dated 13 June 1942 affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore dated 25 July 1941 in two Suits Nos. 28 of 1940 and 34 of 1940. These two suits are between the same parties and the plaintiffs in Suit No. 28 of 1940 who lost in both the Courts below are now the appellants. The questions involved in both the suits are substantially identical. In the first mentioned suit the plaintiffs who are the defendants in the second mentioned suit, have sought for a declaration that the defendants therein who are the plaintiffs in the second mentioned suit have no right, title or interest in the properties left by one Gopal Chandra Mondal deceased. In the second mentioned suit the plaintiff sought for a partition by metes and bounds of his share in the properties of the said Gopal Chandra Mondal upon declaration of his title therein. The facts of the case with which we are concerned in these appeals are undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) One Gopal Chandra Mondal, a Hindu, governed by the Dayabagha School of Hindu Law, died intestate in or about March 1922 leaving behind him his widow Sm. Narayani Dassi and three sons, viz. Rasaraj, Rakhalraj and Dwijaraj, the last named being then a minor and also certain properties. Prior to his death Gopal authorised his wife, Narayani Dassi to give away Dwijaraj in adoption to one Bepin Behari Mondal, who was his maternal uncle. In pursuance of that authority Narayani Dassi gave away Dwijaraj in adoption to Bepin in March 1923 since when Dwijaraj was renamed as Deben. Rasaraj died in 1938 leaving behind him a minor son Biswanath.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of Rakhalraj and Biswanath who are the appellants that (1) Deben or Dwijaraj was divested of the one-third share in the properties which he inherited from Gopal by reason of his adoption; (2) Even if it be held that there had been no divestment as aforesaid Deben had lost his right to the properties by reason of adverse possession thereof by the said appellants.