P.K. Tare, J.

This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Second Appeal No. 431 of 1958 (Gokulprasad v. Bhagwandas and Others) and Second Appeal No. 486 of 1958 (Gomtiprasad and Another v. Bhagwandas and Others).

This appeal is u/s 100 of the CPC read with section 220 of the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 against the decree, dated 20-8-1958, passed by Shri Nirajanlal Shrivastava, Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No. 122/22 of 1957, affirming the order of Shri Ramkumar, Tahsildar, Teonther dated 15-11-1956, in Revenue Case No. 1 of 1956-57 directing mutation in favour of the respondents.

Second Appeal No. 431 of 1958 is by one of the defendants against the decree, dated 20-8-1958, passed by Shri Niranjan Lal Shrivastava, Additional District Judge, Rewa, in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1957, reversing the decree, passed by Shri Ranapratap Singh, Munsiff, Teonther in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1956, dated 31-1-1957.

Second Appeal No. 486 of 1958 is by some of the defendants u/s 100 of the CPC against the decree, dated 20-8-1958, passed by Shri Niranjan Lal Shrivastava, Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No. 44/40 of 1958, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff Teonther, in Civil Suit No. 29 of 1957, dated 13-2-1958.

The question involved in the present appeals is as to whether the plaintiffs or the defendants are the heirs of one Jagatdhari and whether which of them are entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue records and entitled to a possession of the property. The relationship of the parties is as under:-

Mat. Nandkumari and Brijpati died during the pendency of the suit.

Jagatdhari was a grove-holder in respect of two separate groves,-(i) khala No. 96 concerning khasara No. 951 which is the subject-matter of the present appeal as also Second Appeal No. 486 of 1958 and (ii) khata No. 28 concerning khasra No. 1862, which is the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 431 of 1958.

Mat. Nandkumari applied for mutation of her name in respect of the said groves claiming to be an heir of her father, Jagatdhari. Brijpati filed an objection before the Tahsildar. As a question of title was raised during the mutation proceedings, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the civil Court as required by section 220 of the V.P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953. The trial Judge held that the daughter, Met. Nandkumari could not be an heir on account of the order of the Rewa Darbar dated 7-6-1934, which was published in the Rewa Gazette dated 16-6-1934. On the other hand the learned appellate Judge held that she was the heir and, therefore, her legal representatives who were substituted in her place were entitled to have their names mutated and also entitled to decree for possession.

This appeal involves only one short question as to the effect of section 325 of the Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935 on the Darbar Order dated 7-6-1934 which was published in the Rewa Gazette, dated 16-6-1934, before dealing with the question, it would be desirable to state some facts. The exact date of the death of Jagatdhari is not known. But from the record, it is apparent that he died some time in the year 1936 after the Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Code, 1935 was brought into force. In 1931, Jagatdhari had executed a mortgage of one of the groves in favour of the grandfather of Ram Manorath, Ram Manorath is a party to Second Appeal No. 486 of 1958. Similarly Jagatdhari had executed another mortgage in respect of the other grove in favour of Nandkumari's father-in-law for a consideration of Rs. 132. Brijpati purported to redeem both the mortgages upon payment of the amounts due under them. So far as the mortgage in favour of Mst. Nandkumari's father-in-law was concerned, Raghuwansh husband of Mst. Nandkumari accepted the mortgage amount from Brijpati. This fact is material to decide the question of estoppel raised by the appellants. It appears that Brijpati filed a suit for redemption in the year 1945 and obtained a