Surajdeo Narayan Prasad vs Ramdewan Pande and Others

Ross, J.—Thia is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for possession of a house and for damages for use and occupation. The plaintiff''s case was that the house belonged to Mt. Kulwaniy Misrain who bequeathed it to Mt. Bhagwati, and that the plaintiff purchased is from Bhagwati''s brother''s widow and her father. The defence was that the house had belonged to Durga Pande and that Bhagwati inherited it as his widow and that defendant 1 is an agnate of Durga Pande.

The learned Subordinate Judge found that no title could be baaed upon the will of Kulwanty Kuer and that Bhagwati was in adverse possession to the true owner and that the property thus became her stridhan on her death. The question then is on whom did it devolve? The law is stated in Mulla''s Hindu Law in para. 125 as being that stridhan other than sulka passes to daughters and daughters'' sons and sons and sons'' sons, and in default of such heirs, if the woman was married in an approved form, it goes to her husband and to his heirs and, on failure of such heirs, to her blood relations. The plaintiff''s vendors were, no doubt, Bhagwati''s blood relations but, before their title can be accepted, it must be shown that Bhagwati''a husband left no heirs. Of this there is no evidence, because this was not the case that was made in the plaint.

The learned Munsif who tried the suit originally pointed this oat and found that

there is nothing to justify the conclusion that after the death of Bhagwati there were no heirs of Durga Pande and, therefore, the father and brother of Bhdgwati, though not heirs, got the property of Durga Pande, and that the plaintiff cannot ask the Court to make out a case for him if the one started in the plaint is not substantiated.

That seems to me to be a very sound conclusion. The learned Counsel foe the appellant was unable to point to any evidence that Bhagwati''s husband left no heirs, and, in view of the fact that the defendants claimed to be his heirs, there was no ground on which the Court could conclude that Bhagwati''s brother and father were entitled to inherit or to convey this property.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.