KANHAI LAL Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are consolidated appeals from decrees dated June 15,1915, of the High Court at Allahabad, made in appeals from decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur. There were two suits, in each of which Kanhai Lal and his brother, Ram Sarup, were the plaintiffs. Kanhai Lal is now the appellant in the consolidated appeals. Ram Sarup's rights were established and are not now in question; he is not a party to these appeals. In one of the suits Brij Lal and his daughter, Ram Kali, were defendants; they are now respondents to one of the appeals. In the other suit Kausilla and Sham Lal, who claims through her, were the defendants; they are the respondents to the other appeals. In each suit Kanhai Lal claimed as a reversioner to one

(2.) UPON the death of Ram Dei on May 14, 1912, Kanhai Lal and his brother, Ram Sarup, were the reversioners to Bahadur Lal. The only question which their Lordships have to consider in these appeals is the question whether Kanhai Lal has not been precluded from claiming as a reversioner by his having been a party to a compromise which was entered into in 1892. If he is not precluded from claiming as a reversioner he is entitled to succeed in these appeals.

(3.) IN order to protect her own interests and the interests of her daughter Kirpa, who was then living, Earn Dei brought two suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur. The earlier of those suits was brought on January 20, 1891, against Kanhai Lal and Parbati, and in that suit Ram Dei claimed a declaration that the alleged adoption of Kanhai Lal by Parbati was null and void. That suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the technical objection that the plaint had not been properly verified. From the decree dismissing that suit Ram Dei appealed to the High Court at Allahabad. The later of those two suits was brought on February 4, 1892, against Parbati and Kausilla, and in it Ram Dei claimed amongst other reliefs a declaration that her late husband, Bahadur Lal, had been the owner and in possession of the entire property of the joint family; that after his death she, Ram Dei, was in possession of and entitled to that property according to Hindu law; and that Parbati and Kausilla had no right other than that of maintenance.