BOSE J.: - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THESE are an appeal and a cross appealagainst a judgment and decree of the PatnaHigh court in a suit for possession andmesne profits. The property in dispute belonged toone Naubat Lal Jha. He died in 1878 leavinga mother Mst. Sahajwati and two widowsMst. Nunuwati and Mst. Chhemawati. Themother died in 1909 and Mst. Nunuwati in1911. The surviving widow died on 5/6/1940.The second party plaintiffs claim to be thenext reversioners and sue for possessionalong with the other plaintiffs who are purchasers of a 10 annas share. The defence is of a two-fold character.The first is an attack on the plaintiffs' claimto be the next reversioners. That affects allthe property in suit. The second is limited tothe properties in Schedule III of the plaint. The family possessed certain delties.On 5/11/1915 Mst. Chhemawati dedicatedthe Schedule III properties to these deitiesand they have been in possession throughtheir shebaits ever since. The defendantsclaim that they are entitled to these propertiesin any event. The deities are the defendantsfirst party and the fourth defendant is theirshebait. He has been described as thedefendant second party. We are not concerned in appeal with the defendants thirdparty. In the year 1933 the plaintiffs instituteda suit against the defendants and Mst.Chhemawati for a declaration that MstChhemawati's deed of endowment dated 5/11/1915 did not bind the reversioners. Theysucceeded in the first court but the decisionwas reversed on appeal on the ground oflimitation. The other prints which arise herewere expressly left open for determinationafter Chhemawati's. death.
(3.) BOTH the lower courts hold that thesecond party plaintiffs have proved their titleas the next reversioners to Naubat Lal Jha.On the strength of this finding the trial courtdecreed the entire claim. The High court,however, upheld the defendants' contentionabout the Schedule III properties and somodified' the decree and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to that extent. Except for thatthe decree of the first court was confirmed. Both sides appeal here. The defendants' appeal is Civil AppealNo. 34 of 1953. The only question there iswhether the plaintiffs have proved that theyare the next reversioners. Both courts holdthey have and as that is a concurrent findingsof fact it cannot be attacked here unleaf itcan be shown that the evidence on whichthe lower courts have rested their decision legally inadmissible. ;