Sir George Rankin.-

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad dated 3rd October 1935, affirming a decree of 7th November 1930, by which the Subordinate Judge at Benares dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs claim as reversioners of one Parshotam Das who died in 1883, a Hindu governed by the Benares school of law.

Harish Chandra, whose name stands at the head of the pedigree table, died in 1856 leaving a widow, whose name was Manki, three daughters (one born posthumously), but no son. In 1860 the widow adopted Parshotam Das, then about five years old. When he died, in 1883 he left a widow Bindeshri and two daughters Mohan and Sohan. Manki Bahu his adoptive mother survived him and died in 1893. His daughter Sohan was married to Mukandi Lal and the plaintiffs Gopal Das and Baldeo Das are her sons. Thus, when Parshotam Das died Bindeshri inherited his property. When she died in 1916 her daughters succeeded, but in 1926 they executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the plaintiffs who thus make title as reversioners of Parshotam Das to any estate which he may have possessed at his death.

The defendants to the suit, in addition to Mohan Bibi and Sohan Bibi, who are only joined pro forma, are a certain idol and its managers. The plaint lays claim to all the property left by Parshotam Das and sets forth the particulars thereof in eight schedules or lists. List 8 may be neglected since it merely mentions certain articles as in the plaintiffs' own possession. Lists 6 and 7 mention properties claimed as accretions to the estate of Parshotam Das but this claim is now abandoned. Lists 4 and 5 comprise moveables as to which it is clear and is now admitted that the plaintiffs are barred by limitation. In the result the property now in dispute may be shortly described as consisting: firstly, of the proprietary interest in a village called Sheodasa in the Benares district together with certain incidental rights as mortgagees of inferior interests therein (lists 1 and 2) : secondly, of a house in the city of Benares which used to be the family dwelling house of Harish Chandra and is called the bari haveli, together with an orchard adjacent thereto (list 3). Another house, called the chhoti haveli, is also entered in list 8 as having belonged to Parshotam Das, but this is not a subject of dispute as it has never been in the possession of the defendant idol or its managers and is not claimed by them. These properties at Sheodasa and Benares belonged originally to Harish Chandra and the plaintiffs' claim is that Parshotam Das inherited them from him. The defendant idol has two lines of defence to the claim. First, that pleaded in para. 15 of the written statement: "It is denied that the property in dispute or any part thereof was left by Babu Parshotam Das." Secondly, that by a compromise dated 17th May 1896, and made by Bindeshri in a litigation between her and Harish Chandra's daughters, in consideration of her getting the chhoti haveli and Rs. 20,000 Government promissory notes all claim to the Sheodasa property, the bari haveli and the orchard was given up by Bindeshri on behalf of her husband's estate and so as to bind his reversioners. This compromise was referred to in the plaint, which attacked it as having no validity against the plaintiffs.

From petitions made by Manki Bahu to the Agent of the Governor-General in the years 1860 and 1871, she is seen to have claimed from the first that the adoption of Parshotam Das was the subject of special stipulation to the effect that she should retain all her rights in her late husband's property and even that its disposition after her death should be within her control. Such stipulations may be assumed to have been invalid as against a minor but Parshotam Das could when he came of age assent to any stipulation made by her or make any new bargain with her. On 9th December 1871, Manki Bahu executed a will which was signed by Parshotam Das, then about 16 years of ag