Judgement

Consolidated Appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (June 15, 1915) affirming and reversing respectively decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur.

The two suits out of which the consolidated appeals arose were instituted by the appellant and his brother under circumstances which fully appear from the judgment of their Lordships. The plaintiffs by their plaints claimed that upon the death of Ram Dei in 1912 they were entitled, under the Mitakshara law, to inherit the entire estate left by her husband, Bahadur Lal, who died in 1883.

The sole question arising upon the appeals was whether the appellants claim was precluded by a compromise of a family dispute in 1892 and the appellants acts thereunder.

The High Court, affirming the decree of the trial judge in one suit and reversing the decree of a different trial judge in the other suit, held that the appellant was so precluded.

1918. Feb. 19, 21. De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the appellant. The compromise did not affect the appellants right to claim as reversioner. He was not competent in Hindu law to deal in anyway with-his right in expectancy Sumsuddin Goolam Husein v. Abdul Husein Kalimuddin (( 1906) I. L. R. 31

B. 165.); Amrit Narayan Singh v. Gaya Singh. (( 1917) L. R. 45 I. A. 35.) Further, the claim which the appellant compromised in 1892 was merely the claim which he was then making to succeed immediately as the adopted son of Badri Prasad; it did not affect his rights upon the succession opening. [Reference was made to the Indian Evidence Act (I. of 1872), s. 115.]

Sir Erle Richards, K.C., and Parikh, for the respondents, were not called upon.

March 15. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN EDGE. These are consolidated appeals from decrees dated June 15, 1915, of the High Court at Allahabad, made in appeals from decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur. There were two suits, in each of which Kanhai Lal and his brother, Ram Sarup, were the plaintiffs. Kanhai Lal is now the appellant in the consolidated appeals. Ram Sarups rights were established and are not now in question; he is not a party to these appeals. In one of the suits Brij Lal and his daughter, Ram Kali, were defendants; they are now respondents to one of the appeals. In the other suit Kausilla and Sham Lal, who claims through her, were the defendants; they are the respondents to the other appeals. In each suit Kanhai Lal claimed as a reversioner to one Bahadur Lal, who died in 1883. Bahadur Lal was a member of a Hindu joint family descended from one Balak Ram. The pedigree of the joint family, so far as it is now material, is briefly as follows—

BALAK RAM (dead).

|

| | | |

Bhadur Lal. Died Badri Prashad Ganga Ram. Died Mt. Ram Piyari

1883. = Mt. Ram Died childless in childless in 1874. |

Dei. Died 1812. 1877. = Mt. Parbati = Mt. Kausilla a

Died 1898. respondent.

| | |

Mt. Kirpa Died Ram Sarup. Kanhai Lal.

1896. = Brij Lal a A plaintiff Plaintiff,

respondent. but not a appellant.

party to

these

appeals.

|

Ram Kali. A

respondent.

Upon the death of Ram Dei on May 14, 1912, Kanhai Lal and his brother, Ram Sarup, were the reversioners to Bahadur Lal. The only question which their Lordships have to consider in these

appeals is the question whether Kanhai Lal has not been precluded from claiming as a reversioner by his having been a party to a compromise which was entered into in 1892. If he is not precluded from claiming as a reversioner he is entitled to succeed in these appeals.

At the time of his death in 1883 Bahadur Lal was by survivorship the sole owner of the family estate, and on his death his widow, Ram Dei, became entitled to that estate for her life, Parbati and Kausilla being entitled only to maintenance. The title of Ram Dei was, however, disputed by Kanhai Lal, Parbati, and Kausilla. Kanhai Lal set up a claim to the family estate, alleging that he had been adopted by Parbati to her deceased husband, Badri Pras