John Beaumont, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated April 29, 1941, which modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly dated June 2, 1936.
(2.) THE plaintiffs (who are respondents in this appeal) claimed possession of two-third parts of Muafi property situate in Mauza Bahra Bikram. THEir case was that on January 8, 1842, the Government made a grant of the lands in suit in favour of the heirs of Ahmad Khan, who had married Sayara Begum the daughter of Nawab Hafiz Rahmat Khan, who had rendered valuable services to the Government which the Government were minded to reward. THE plaint alleged that the grant was made enjoyable in perpetuity generation after generation for the maintenance and help of the heirs of Ahmad Khan, and that each heir was to hold for life only and on the death of an heir the next heir of Ahmad Khan was to take as such heir and not as heir of his predecessor. THE plaint further alleged that Ahmad Khan had no male or female issue, and that after his death Musammat Mohammadi Begum was his heir according to Mohammadan law and entered into possession of his estate. In the written statement of the several defendants the title of the plaintiffs was denied, and it was alleged that Sayara Begum, the widow of Ahmad Khan, was the absolute owner of the property in suit, and that in 1841 she made a gift of the property to Mohammadi Begum; that in 1854 Mohammadi Begum mortgaged the property, and in 1856 it was sold by the Court in a suit instituted by the mortgagee and was purchased by the predecessors in title of the defendants, and that the defendants and their predecessors have been in possession of the property ever since. Both Courts in India held that the tenure of the land in suit was as claimed by the plaintiffs, and that each heir of Ahmad Khan held the property for life and on his death the next heir took. These findings have not been challenged before their Lordships, and it follows from such findings that limitation could start to run against an heir from the date when his title accrued on the death of the previous heir.
(3.) THE Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs had proved that (hey were the heirs of Mohammadi Begum, but that they had not proved that Mohammadi Begum was the heir of Ahmad Khan, and accordingly dismissed the suit. In appeal the High Court agreed with all the findings of the lower Court except with regard to the heirship of Mohammadi Begum. The Court held that Sayara Begum, as widow of Ahmad Khan, was one of his heirs according to Mohammadan law and inherited one-fourth of his property, and that it was not proved that Mohammadi Begum was the heir of Sayara Begum; but the Court held it proved that Mohammadi Begum was the heir of Ahmad Khan as to the remaining three-fourths of his property and accordingly they decreed the plaintiff's suit as to three-fourths of the two-thirds of the property claimed.;