Mr. Ameer Ali. -

This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Jamuna Singh in the Court of one of the Subordinate Judges at Patna for posses sion of property called Mauza Bariarpur in that District. He claims to have ac quired his title by purchase from his as signors, defendants 11, 12 and 13.

The property in dispute, though of com paratively small value, has already been the subject of a series of litigation.

The following pedigree will give a gene ral idea of the various parties whom the plaintiff has impleaded in the case.

N. B. - The name of Raghunandan's father does not appear in the Record. He had two wives, one of whom was the sister of Dhanukdari and mother of Raghunandn, the other wife being the mother of Balmukund and Chitterbhuj (Defts. 6 and 7.)

The Mauza Bariarpur belonged original ly to one Dhanukdhari Missir, who died, it is alleged, some 50 years ago, leaving him surviving a widow named Monakka Kuar. As Dhanukdhari left no issue, his widow succeeded to the estate and held possession until her death in 1902. She appears to have created in her lifetime a Zur-i-peshgee lease in respect of part of the property in favour of the 9th defen dant.

The plaintiff alleges that on Monakka's death there were no agnatic relations of Dhanukdhari. He has, however, as he says, made all persons claiming reversion ary rights through females parties to the suit. His case is that among them his vendors, namely, Rajendra, Ram Sohawan and Qam Nirekhon, who have assigned to him their rights in the property in ques tion, are preferentially entitled to the succession of Dhanukdhari.

The 1st defendant, Mahabir Prasad Tewari, the present appellant before the Board, on the other hand, alleges that Monakka before her death made a will in his favour and devised to him the property in suit, and that he obtained possession of the same, which he has retained until now. It appears that he obtained, on the 16th April 1903, probate of the will shortly after the death of Monakka from the Court of the District Judge of Patna. It is not disputed, however, that the devise by Monakka was invalid.

The first defendant's real case is that at the time inheritance to Dhanukdhari's estate opened, on the death of Monakka, the preferential heir to his succession was his agnatic relation, Gopal Misser. His place is shown in the pedigree. Gopal Misser is still alive, and the appellant has obtained from him an assignment of his rights and interests. The appellant has also purchased, it appears, the rights and interests, if any, of several of the other defendants.

In 1903 a suit was brought by the Secretary of State for the possession of Mauza Bariarpur on the allegation that Dhanukdhari had died without leaving any heir, that Mahabir, the appellant had no title to the property and that it had ac cordingly escheated to the Crown. It is alleged by the appellant that this suit was really prompted by defendant 9.

A number of persons, almost all of whom have been made defendants in this action, came forward as claimants in the suit of the Secretary of State. The suit was finally dismissed by the High Court of Calcutta on the 14th May 1908 Soon after its dismissal the appellant brought a suit against Adit, the 9th defendant, for redemption of the usufruc tuary mortgage created by Monakka. The appellant based his right to redeem on the assignment to him by Hanuman (whose name will be found in the pedigree) of his rights and interests in the property, and the first Court made a decree in his favour in these terms :-

"In accordance with my decision of the other issues I hold that the plaintiff will get a declaration that he is the proprietor of the disputed Mauza Bariarpur as men tioned in the plaint and that the defendant No. 1 will be declared to be a Zarpeshgidar of the Mauza, and it will also be declared that the plaintiff will get Khas possession of the disputed Mauza on payment of Rs. 200, as stipulated in the 2nd Ticca Patta (dated 1-9-02)."

The Subordinate Judge