JUDGMENT

Nanavutty, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff Mt. Chandraji is the sole person entitled to succeed as a tenant to the plots in suit and that the defendant, Umadat Upadhia, has no concern whatsoever with them. The following pedigree will serve to elucidate the relationship between the parties:

    TABLE

2. The suit relates to tenancy land in village Sewra, which is in the zamindari of the talukdar of the Kurwar estate. The plots in suit were held by one Gobind Prasad and after his death by his son, Bhawani Prasad, as the sole statutory tenant. Bhawani Prasad died some time between 1890 and 1895, leaving his three sons Ram Adhin, Badal and Ram Lal. Bhawani Prasad lived jointly with his three sons till his death. The defendant in his written statement alleged that he was the legitimate son of Ram Lal and that the plaintiff was a concubine of Badal. Upon the pleadings of the parties the learned Munsif framed the following issues : (1) Is the plaintiff the lawfully married wife of Badal ? (2) Is the defendant the legitimate son of Ram Lal ? (3) Whether there was any separation as alleged in para. 4 of the plaint ? (4) Whether the land in suit was given to Ram Lal in sole and exclusive possession, as alleged by the defendant ? (5) Is the suit not cognizable by this Court ? (6) Is the court-fee paid sufficient ? (7) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

3. The learned Munsif held on issue 1 that the plaintiff was the lawfully married wife of Badal and decided issue 1 in favour of the plaintiff. His finding on issue 2 was that the defendant was a legitimate son of Ram Lal. His finding on issue 3 was that the plaintiff had failed to prove separation and that the plaintiff's husband and his two brothers lived jointly up to the time of their death. His finding on issue 4 was that the land in suit was not given to Ram Lal Upadhia in sole and exclusive possession as alleged by the defendant. His finding on issue 5 was that the suit was cognizable by the civil Court. On issue 6 he held that the court-fee paid was sufficient for the declaratory relief claimed by the plaintiff. In view of his finding on issue 3 the learned Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief and accordingly dismissed her suit. In appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Sultanpur upheld the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has now come in second appeal.

4. In my opinion this appeal is concluded by findings of fact. The findings of the two lower Courts, that the family of Bhawani Prasad and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family and that the tenancy was the common holding of this joint Hindu family, make an end of the plaintiff's case. Under Section 48, Oudh Rent Act, the plaintiff cannot claim to be an heir of Badal in respect of the tenancy holding cultivated by her husband and his brothers. A legal heir under Section 48, Oudh Rent Act, is to be discovered according to the personal law of the tenant who died. Under the Hindu law the tenancy of Badal could only be inherited by his nephew Umadat by right of survivorship and Badal's widow was no heir under the Hindu law. It was not open to the plaintiff-appellant to argue that because in the register of the Court of Wards she as well as her nephew Umadat have been shown as joint tenants of this holding, she was entitled to succeed to the holding as an heir of her husband to the extent of 1/2 of the holding." Under the Hindu law the plaintiff can be no heir at all of her husband's joint tenancy land. In my opinion the suit was rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. I accordingly uphold the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.