- (1.) The point before us in this case is one of some difficulty, because it seems to us to be, upon the facts found, a novel point; and we have no judicial findings of the Courts before us which can be a guide to our judgment. Our duty therefore is simply to do, as best we can, equity and justice between the parties. Upon the findings of facts by the lower appellate Court, which are not now disputed before us, the property in suit was the property of one Ramkant. On his death his widow, Rai Mani, held the property up to some period, at least within twelve years of the time of the present suit. At that time the defendant, special appellant before us, claimed the property as being not a part of Ramkant's ancestral estate, but as belonging to his own separate talook. Rai Mani thereupon gave up the property to the defendant, and refused, and still refuses, to enter upon it.
(2.) In this state of facts the plaintiff, who is the reversionary heir of Ramkant, came into Court, and claimed to have his title declared and to obtain possession of the property.
(3.) The lower appellate Court has given the plaintiff a decree,--apparently a decree which runs in these terms. "That the plaintiff should hold the land as trustee, under his right as heir to Ramkant, on the death of his widow Rai Mani.";