SRINATH BOSE Vs. NIBARAN CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for establishment of the plaintiffs right to, and possession of, the properties in dispute, which are described in the four schedules to the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiffs are the daughter s sons and sole heirs of one Radha Krishna Roy. Radha Krishna left a daughter Sital Moni and the plaintiffs, grandsons, by that daughter. The defendants are the heirs of Ram Kanai and Dinabandhu, who were the brothers of Radha Krishna. The name of one Kumeda Charan Roy, who was the father of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, may be mentioned here. It aopsars that after the death of Radha Krishna, Kumeda charan asserted that he had been adopted by Radha Krishna and laid claim to the estate left by him. In the year 188i, Sital Mini brought a suit for establish ment of her right to a share of the estate as the heiress of her father Radha Krishna. The suit was brought against Kumeda .Charan and the other heirs of Ram Kanai and Dinabandhu. It was contested by Kumeda alone and it appears that the other defendants were subseqently discharged from the action. The suit was terminated by a Solenamah entered into between Sital Moni and Kumeda Charan on the 24th July 1883. Under this Solenamah, the dispute between the parties was settled; Kumeda Charan, defendant No. 1 in that suit, gave up his claim as the adopted son of Radha Krishna and his claim to certain properties; Sital Moni also gave up certain properties in favour of Kumeda Charan and her right to the rest of the properties was declared. There was subsequently a suit for partition brought by Sital Moni which was based upon the Solenamah; and lastly there was a suit for mesne profits brought by the lady against the defendants, which again ended in a compromise, Sital Moni died in January 1902 and the present suit was instituted by her eons, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, for establishment of their right in respect of certain properties, their title to which had been denied or of which they had been dispossessed by the defendants.

(3.) The Court of Appeal below, agreeing with the Court of first instance, has given, a decree declaring the right of the plaintiff .in respect of the lands of Schedule I and. disagreeing with that Court has given a decree for possession and mesne profits in respect of a one-third share of the lends of Schedule II. The claim with respect to the lands of Schedules III and IV" his been dismissed by both the Courts below.