Ramratna Singh, J. - (1.)These appeals by some of the defendants arise out of a suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, certain landed properties described in Schedules B, C and D appended to the plaint. These properties belonged to one Tonu Mandal, who died about 70 years before the institution of the suit, leaving behind him two daughters named Manoda and Nilmani Dasi, who died, respectively in 1940 and 1948. After the death of Tonu Mandal, these two daughters inherited, as limited owners, his properties; and by amicable settlement Manoda got ten annas share and Nilmani got six annas snare in the properties. As Manoda died earlier without leaving an heir, Nilmani Dasi succeeded to her share of the properties also in accordance with the rules of Dayabhag law, by which the parties are governed and, consequently, Nilmani came in possession of the entire properties of Tonu Mandal as a limited owner. Nilmani had four sons, all of whom died in her life-time; but she had several grand-sons surviving at the time of her death. They are defendants first party in the suit; and the property described in Schedule D to the plaint was in their possession at the time of the institution of the suit. Nilmani Dasi had executed a sale deed on the 19th, Baisakh 1314 Bengali Sambat in respect of the property described in Schedule C to the plaint in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants third party; and these defendants were in possession of this property at the time of the institution of the suit.
(2.)She had also executed a deed of exchange in favour of one Premmoyee Oasi on the 13th jeth 1295 Bengali Sambat, by which she gave the property described in Schedule B to the plaint in exchange for some landed property of village Gokrul described in Schedule E of the plaint; and the two ladies were, accordingly, recorded as raiyats of the exchanged lands. The defendants second party are the descendants of Premmoyi Dasi; and they were in possession of the property described in Schedule B, while the defendants first party were in possession of the properties described in Schedule E to the plaint at the time of the institution of the suit.
(3.)Tonu Mandal had two other brothers named Santusta Mandal and Bhim Mandal. Plaintiff No. 2 was the only surviving descendant of Bhim Mandal at the time of the death of Nilmani Dasi, while plaintiff no. 1 and defendants fourth party (namely, Kalipada and Gobind) were the only surviving descendants of santusra Mandal at that time. Hence, under the Dayabhag law the plaintiffs and defendants fourth party were the nearest reversioners of Tonu Mandal after the death or Nirmani and were entitled to succeed to his estate, me share of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants fourth party being equal that is, half and half. Gobind mandal one of the defendants 4th party, died during the pendency of the suit and his son and widow were substituted in his place. All these facts are now admitted.