Judgment

BOSE J. : These are an appeal and a cross appeal against a judgment and decree of the Patna High Court in a suit for possession and mesne profits.

2. The property in dispute belonged to one Naubat Lal Jha. He died in 1878 leaving a mother Mst. Sahajwati and two widows Mst. Nunuwati and Mst. Chhemawati. The mother died in 1909 and Mst. Nunuwati in 1911. The surviving widow died on 5-6-1940. The second party plaintiffs claim to be the next reversioners and sue for possession along with the other plaintiffs who are purchasers of a 10 annas share.

3. The defence is of a two-fold character. The first is an attack on the plaintiff s claim to be the next reversioners. That affects all the property in suit. The second is limited to the properties in Schedule III of the plaint.

4. The family possessed certain deities. On 5-11-1915 Mst. Chhemawati dedicated the Schedule III properties to these deities and they have been in possession through their shebaits ever since. The defendants claim that they are entitled to these properties in any event. The deities are the defendants first party and the fourth defendant is their shebait. He has been described as the defendant second party. We are not concerned in appeal with the defendants third party.

5. In the year 1933 the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants and Mst. Chhemawati for a declaration that Mst. Chhemawati s deed of endowment dated 5-11-1915 did not bind the reversioners. They succeeded in the first Court but the decision was reversed on appeal on the ground of limitation. The other points which arise hear was expressly left open for determination after Chhemawati s death.

6. Both the lower Courts hold that the second party plaintiffs have proved their title as the next reversioners to Naubat Lal Jha. On the strength of this finding the trial court decreed the entire claim. The High Court however, upheld the defendant s contention about the Schedule III properties and so modified the decree and dismissed the plaintiff s claim to that extent. Except for that the decree of the first Court was confirmed.

7. Both sides appeal here.

8. The defendant s appeal is Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1953. The only question there is whether the plaintiff s have proved that they are the next reversioners. Both Courts hold they have and as that is a concurrent finding of fact it cannot be attacked here unless it can be shown that the evidence on which the lower Courts have rested their decision is legally inadmissible.

9. The genealogical tree on which the plaintiffs rely is a long one but we need not concern ourselves with all its details because if the evidence on which the lower Court rely is admissible, it is enough to prove the tree. The following portion of the tree is all that we need consider. We have omitted unnecessary names.

10. The following is the evidence on which the Courts below have acted. First there is the 5th plaintiff Khantar Jha (P. W. 6). He proves the entire genealogy. It is true he has not got personal knowledge of every step in the sense that he knew each one of the persons named : that would be impossible as many died before he was born. But personal knowledge is not necessary in these cases.

A member of the family can speak in the witness box of what he was been told and what he has learned about his own ancestors, provided what he says is an expression of his own independent opinion (even though it is based on hearsay derived from deceased, not living, persons) and is not merely repetition of the hearsay opinion of others, and provided the opinion is expressed by conduct, which he acquired the knowledge (for example, whether before the dispute or not) would affect its weight but not its admissibility. This is therefore legally admissible evidence which, if believed, is legally sufficient to support the finding.

11. However, the lower Courts have not rested their decision solely on the 5th plaintiff s testimony. They used certain Panjis as corroboration and the ques