- (1.) These two appeals arise from a suit in which there was a triangular contest in respect of zamindari and other properties admittedly belonging at one time to Raj Bahadur, who died in 1895, leaving no issues. His widow, Mt. Durga Kunwar, who succeeded to his interest, died on the 20th February 1928. On her death three claimants appeared on the scene. The present plaintiff Mukat Behari Lal claimed as "bandhu", being the son of Raj Bahadur s father s sister, Mt. Tulsha. His case was that no agnatic relation of Raj Bahadur descending indirect male line from the common ancestor was in existence and that the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to his estate. The defendants first set, Ram Chandra and Sia Ram, claimed to be "sapinda" relations of Raj Bahadur, being the descendants of the common ancestor Pran Nath in the direct male line and as such entitled to exclude the plaintiff, who claimed to be a relation of Raj Bahadur through a female. The third claimant was Mt. Chunna Kunwar, who is the widow of Kunwar Bahadur, a first cousin of Raj Bahadur. She claimed the whole and in the alternative half of Raj Bahadur s estate under a family arrangement said to be binding on the estate and arrived at between Mt. Durga Kunwar and Mt. Chunna Kunwar shortly after the death of Raj Bahadur.
(2.) As a matter of fact, Chunna Kunwar relied on an award of arbitrators to whom certain disputes bad been referred to for arbitration when disputes arose betweena Chunna Kun war s husband, Kunwar Bahadur, on the one hand, and Mt. Durga Kunwar on the other. According to her case, the award provided that Mt. Durga Kunwar would be recorded as a nominal owner of her husband s property entitled to receive a fixed annual amount as maintenance from the income of the estate but that the actual management and control of the property would vest in Kunwar Bahadur, on whose death, if he died son-less, Raj Bahadur s estate would be divided between Mt. Durga Kunwar, his widow, and Mt. Chunna Kunwar, the widow of Kunwar Bahadur. The latter died issueless on the 30th June 1916; and though in terms of the award Eaj Bahadur s estate should have been taken half and half by Mt. Durga Kunwar and Chunna Kunwar, Mt. Durga Kunwar took possession of the entire estate. Mb. Chunna Kunwar maintains that, in spite of Mt. Durga Kunwar remaining in possession of the whole instead of half. Mt. Chunna Kunwar s rights to a half share remained unaffected by the unwarranted action of Mt. Durga Kunwar, on whose death Mt. Chunna Kunwar could assert her rights. She pleaded that Mt. Durga Kunwar accepted maintenance allowance and should be deemed to have relinquished any interest which she had in the estate of her deceased husband. Mt. Chunna Kunwar seems to have pleaded two alternative cases in her written statement, firstly, that the effect of the award was that Kunwar Bahadur was the owner of the entire estate of Raj Bahadur under the award, Durga Kunwar being entitled to maintenance. On that footing she (Chunna Kunwar) claimed the entire estate of Raj Bahadur, secondly, it was alleged that Mt. Chunna Kunwar was entitled to at least half as directed in one part of the award. In arguments before us no attempt was made to claim the entire estate of Raj Bahadur; and the learned advocate for Mt. Chunna Kunwar claimed only half of the estate in terms of the award, which purports to direct that, on Kunwar Bahadur dying without a male issue, the two widows would be entitled to the estate in equal shares. Mt. Chunna Kunwar s written statement is not quite explicit in treating the award as a family arrangement; but her learned Counsel argued before us that the award was consented to by all the parties making the reference and should be treated as a family arrangement in itself. If Mt. Chunna Kunwar s claim is well-founded, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 1st; set (Ram Chandra and Sia Ram) can have any immediate right to possession.
(3.) In the mutation proceedings, which followed the death of Mt. Durga Kunwar, Mt. Chunna Kunwar was recognized, by the Revenue Court of the first instance, as the rightful claimant. On appeal, however, the defendants 1st set succeeded in obtaining mutation of names in their favour. Mt. Chunna Kunwar asserts that, in spite of the adverse order of the appellate Revenue Court, she is in possession of the estate. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff, Mukat Behari Lal, on 4th March 1929 on the allegations already referred to. The following pedigree will explain the position of three claimants and the other members of the family of Raj Bahadur, whose names occur in certain documents which disclose the previous history of the case: Pran Nath | ---------------------------------------------- | | | Rupan Lal alias Rup Chand Aunp Rai Khayali Ram | | (childless) ----------------------------- | | | | ------------------------- Khem Chand Sita Ram Bhawani | | | | (Childless) | Pemraj | | | Durga Prasad Basant Lal(childless) | | | ------------------------- | | | | Murli Dhar Bansi Dhar(Childless) | | | ---------------------------- | | | | Ram Chandra, deft. 1. Sia Ram, deft. 2. | | -------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Mt. Ganeshi=Shib Dayal Mt. Mahrani Har Dayal Mt. Tulshi | | | Kunwar Bahadur(died 30-6-1916) Raj Bahadur (died in 1895) Mukat Behal Lal, = Mt. Chunna Kunwar = Mt. Durga Kunwar (plaintiff) (defendant 3). (died on 20-2-1928);