MUSAMMAT SOHAN BIBI Vs. MUSAMMAT HIRAN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the suit which gave rise to this appeal are these--one Babu Harish Chander died leaving him surviving a widow Must. Manki Bahu and three daughters Hiran Bibi, Makundi Bibi and Punno Bibi. It is alleged that after his death Manki Bahu under the authority given to her by her husband adopted Babu Parsottam Das The plaintiff, Sohan Bibi, is a daughter of Parsottam Das and the defendant Bindesri Bahu is his widow. Parsottam Das left another daughter Mohan Bibi who is one of the defendants to the suit. Manki Bahu died in 1893. In 1895 Punno Bibi one of the daughters of Babu Harish Chander brought a suit against Bindesri Bahu and against her own sisters for a declaration of her right to a third share in certain Government securities of which Bindesri Bahu had taken possession and also in certain moveable property. The parties to that suit, namely, Punno Bibi, Bindesri Bahu, Makundi Bibi and Hiran Bibi entered into a compromise on the 2 April, 1896 and in accordance with the compromise a decree was passed on the 28 of May 1896. Under the compromise and the decree certain Government promissory notes were partitioned and moveable and immoveable property was divided and the rights of the parties to the suit in respect of that property were declared. The present suit was brought on the 16 of January 1906 by Sohan Bibi one of the daughters of Parsottam Das for a declaration that the effect of the compromise and the decree referred to above was to transfer the property of Babu Harish Chander and that such transfer was null and void so far as it was prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff as one of the reversioners to the estate of Babu Parsottam Das. She asked for other reliefs to which, it is not necessary to refer.

(2.) The defence to the suit was that Babu Parsottam Das had never been adopted by Manki Bahu and the plaintiff had no right to sue, that the compromise and the decree referred to above were binding on the plaintiff and that the claim was barred by limitation. Other pleas were also put forward but we need not refer to them,

(3.) The learned Judge who tried the suit framed various issues but he took evidence and recorded finding's only in respect of the first five issues. He came to the conclusion that Parsottam Das had been adopted by Manki Bahu with the permission of her husband but he held that the compromise and the decree passed on the basis of it were binding on the plaintiff and precluded her from maintaining the present suit. He also held the claim to be barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the suit.