JUDGMENT

Kanhaiya Lal and Mukerji, JJ. - The dispute in this appeal relates to the property of Parabh Lal, who died of the plague on the 28th of January, 1905. He had several sons, some of whom: had died in his life-time. The allegation of the plaintiff was that one of his sons, Har Bilas, survived him and died of plague a few days later, that Har Bilas was succeeded by his mother, Musammat Kishori, and that on the death of Musammat Kishori, which took place on the 9th of December, 1916, Nand Lal and Pararn Sukh became entitled to the property in dispute as the nearest reversionary heirs. Param Sukh has since sold his rights to Mangli who was substituted in his place during the pendency of this litigation.

2. The defendants, Dongar Singh and Ugar Singh, claim to be the sons of the sister of Parabh Lal. The defendants NOS. 9 to 16 have been impleaded as the remoter members of the family to which Parabh Lal belonged. The defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are transferees either from Musammat Kishori or from one or other of the claimants to the estate. The main defence urged on behalf of the defendants appellants was that Nand Lal and Param Sukh were not the nearest reversionary heirs of Parabh Lal or Har Bilas, that Har Bilas had died in the life-time of Parabh Lal and that Dongar Singh and Ugar Singh were entitled to his estate as his sister's sons. There were other pleas raised which are not material for the purpose of this appeal.

3. The court below found that Har Bilas had survived Parabh Lal, though that finding was expressed in terms apt to be misunderstood. It further found that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversionary heirs of Har Bilas and were entitled to his estate in preference to any of the contesting defendants.

4. The learned Counsel for the defendants appellants has made no attempt to challenge the correctness of the finding arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to the order in which Parabh Lal and Har Bilas died. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the evidence afforded by the extracts from the registers of births and deaths, produced by the plaintiffs, which indicated that Parabh Lal had died on the 28th of January, 1905, and Har Bilas on the 2nd of February, 1905; but he misstated that the witnesses for the plaintiffs sought to prove that Har Bilas had predeceased his father, whereas the fact was that the witnesses of the defendants had tried to do so. He similarly misstated that the witnesses for the defence sought to prove that Har Bilas died after his father, whereas the fact was that they had tried to prove that he had predeceased him. In any case the conclusion at which He arrived, based on the extracts from the registers of births and deaths which supported the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiffs, stands unchallenged, and we accept it as representing the correct order in which the deaths of Parabh Lal and Har Bilas took place.

5. Har Bilas must on that finding be deemed to have been the last male holder of the disputed property. He was succeeded by his mother, Musammat Kishori, who died some time in 1916. The plaintiffs have sought to rely in support of their relationship with Har Bilas on a bahi or memorandum book produced by Kokaran, a bard of Sitalgarh, and another bahi or memorandum book produced by Musammat Tirbeni, the daughter and heir of a Gangabasi priest residing at Soron. They have also relied on the evidence of certain witnesses produced on their behalf. It is admitted by the witnesses produced by the defendants appellants, and in fact by one of the defendants himself, that the family to which Parabh Lal belonged had a family bard named Sanwalia and it is also admitted that there was a priest of the family at Soron named Vidia Ram. Kokaran is the nephew of Sanwalia. He has produced a bahi in which the relationship between the ancestors of Parabh Lal and those of Nand Lal and Paras Ram is given in detail. According to the evidence, a family bard usually gets presents from his cu