RAMESHWAR RAI Vs. SHEOPAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Remeshar plaintiff in respect of certain property originally owned by one Raghunandan. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled as next reversioner on the death of Raghunandan's widow, Musammat Lachminia, and the suit was brought against more remote reversioners. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped by a certain agreement from claiming the whole of the estate of Raghunandan.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:--The genealogical table given in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court indicates the relationship between the parties to this suit, Raghunandan, the last male owner, died in 1892, leaving behind him a widow, Musammat Lachminia. The lady could not manage her husband's property herself, so she entered into an arrangement, which pruported to lease out her land to the plaintiff, his two brothers and his two distant cousins. They, however, failed to pay her the rent secured by this lease, so she mortgaged the land to one Bansidhar in 1895. At least the document purported to be a mortgage. Thereupon the plaintiff Rameshar and his two brothers brought a suit in 1895 for cancellation of the mortgage, and I am told that it was on the ground that it was fictitious and destructive of their rights. Any way they were successful. Nine years later the plaintiff, his two brothers Sarju and Ram Dhani, and a distant cousin Sheopal entered into an agreement with Musammat Lachminia, which provided that during Lachminia's lifetime the three brothers consisting of the plaintiff Ramdhani and Sarju should remain in possession of half the property and Sheopal, a distant cousin, in possession of the other half. They were to pay Government Revenue and pay the lady an annuity of Rs. 31 but the lady's name was to continue in the village papers as the owner for the time being. After her death the plaintiff and his two brothers were to be entered in the khewat for half the property and Sheopal for the other half. Mahadeo brother of Sheopal was not a party to this agreement. His grandson Sheopher represents the surviving member of Mahadeo's line. In 1916 Sheopher finding that his grand-father had not been a party to this agreement, brought a suit for cancellation of the deed of 1914 against Musammat Lachminia, Rameshar, the plaintiff, whose two brothers were dead by then, and Sheopal. Rameshar did not resist the suit. Sheopal and Musammat Lachminia compromised it. Sheopal agreed with Sheopher for the latter to have one-half of the moiety of the property assigned by the agreement of 1914 to himself. It is clear that the effect of this compromise was to make Sheopher bound by the original agreement of 1914 so far as the rights of the parties to that agreement other than Sheopal were established; for in getting half of Sheopal's share he was taking advantage of that agreement, which created that half share.

(3.) Rameshar, whose two brothers have now died, in this suit claims the whole of Raghunandan's estate as the nearest reversioner. Both the lower Courts have rejected the claim, taking the view that he is precluded by the agreement of 1914 from claiming more than a half share.