The 1st May, 1851. Present: H. W. DEANE, Judge. CASE No. 132 or 1849. Regular appeal from the decision of BHOWANNEE BISSASHUR PERSHAD SINGH, (Plaintiff), Appellant, versus SOOFUL SINGH AND OTHERS, (Defendants,) Respondents. THE suit is brought to obtain possession of mouzahs Moondearee and Mullooah, appertaining formerly to the jageer of Kesho Baboo, in zillah Ghazeepore, and to recover wasilat, from Jeyt 1252 to 1254 Fuslee, amounting to Rs. 5,766: the full value of the claim is Rs. 9,768-8-6. Mouzahs Moondearee and Mullooah are bordered by a village named Chorekund, and the inhabitants of the latter, finding themselves injured by encroachments on the part of certain of the proprietors of Moondearee and Mullooah, sued them, and, in February 1836, obtained a decree against them. In 1841, on the resumption of the jageer of Kesho Baboo, mouzahs Moondearee and Mullooah were brought under settlement; a furd putteedaree was drawn out, in which the interest of the several sharers were specified, Munogee Lall, a ganoongoe, being appointed, with the consent of the community, a referee in case of disputes. The proprietors of Chorekund afterwards put in execution the decree they held, and brought to sale the rights of such of the sharers of mouzahs Moondearee and Mullooah as had been cast under the decree. The plaintiff, in 1845, beca me the purchaser. He objects to the furd putteedaree drawn out at settlement, and claims to be recorded sole owner in virtue of his purchase. A genealogical table is produced by the defendants, showing their descent from the original proprietor, Hut Suhai. The plaintiff is himself a sharer in the mouzahs, as heir of Roop Suhai, one of the sons of Hut Suhai. It is urged, that the plaintiff cannot take exception to the specification of shares made out at the settlement, for not only was it prepared before the purchase took place, under which this claim is preferred, but was assented to by the plaintiff himself in his capacity of sharer, as heir of Roop Suhai, as above. Nor assented to only; it was pleaded by the plaintiff in his own favor, in answer to a claim which Sirbdowan Singh and others brought for a share in the mouzahs, and which was dismissed by the Judge, in appeal, in June 1844. The sale of the rights of those sharers, against whom the zemindars of Chorekund got their decree, cannot, it is pleaded, affect the interests of the remaining proprietary body. The Principal Sudder Ameen pronounced the plaintiff cntitled to an eightanna share in the mouzahs, with proportionate wasilát from the date of decree. The claim to wasilát for past years was rejected. The lower Court has taken, as the basis of its adjustment of the matter in dispute, the furd tufreek of the settlement, and, comparing it with the sale papers, has awarded to the plaintiff a proprietary title to the interests, as defined in the furd tufreek, of those against whom the sale process was carried out. Against a determination so obviously equitable can only be pleaded, as has been pleaded, the utter worthlessness of the furd tufreek. The sufficient answer to this plea, however, will be found in the fact, which has been established in defence, and noticed above, that the plaintiff, when made a defendant at the suit of Sirbdowan Singh and others, rested his opposition on the correctness of this very document. The defendants have shown that he appealed to it when a purpose was to be served by proving it valid. Now that he finds it to stand in his way, he asserts that it has been prepared fraudulently. Besides the objection to the furd putteedaree, which has been renewed in appeal, the plaintiff contends that he purchased, at the auction sale, the rights of one Gunga Singh, whose name has been changed by the defendants to Gunga Ram Singh, with the view of exempting him from the operation of sale. The reason assigned by the plaintiff for the change is, that, whereas there are several sharers in the estate of the name of Gunga Singh, only one is possessed of any considerable interest, and his rights, which ought to have passed to the plaintiff, are still reserved to him under the name of Gunga Ram Singh. The averment is not made good on examination of the record, the decree had by the zemindars of Chorekund is found to include three persons, by name, Gunga Singh, and the rights of three persons, bearing that name, having been duly made over to plaintiff. It is true that the koorseenamah put in at settlement gives four persons by name Gunga Singh, as heirs of Roop Suhai, and does not exhibit what the hissehkushee, drawn up at the same time, (12th October 1841), exhibits, viz., a person by name Gunga Ram Singh, as heir of Chuttergung-why the two papers should differ in an important particular is not explained, unless it be, that the koorseenamah now given in is the document which was alluded to by the arbi trator Munogee Lall, when, as shown by the record, he intimated to the Collector that a certain koorseenamah, which had been made out, was not correct, and that an accurate table of descent would be prepared at a future time. But independently of any direct proof that the defendants have perpetrated the fraud imputed to them, the Principal Sudder Ameen, in noticing the point in his judgment, clearly demonstrates, that Gunga Ram Singh is not one of those whose rights have passed into the plaintiffs' hands, because this very Gunga Ram Singh joined with Soopul Singh and others in a suit in 1847, for division against the plaintiff, without any objection to his right of action being taken by the plaintiff. Had the plaintiff been able to say that he had previously purchased the rights of the person suing him, it is not to be supposed that so very sufficient an answer would not have found a place in his reply to the plaint. Yet no such plea was raised, and the suit terminated in 1848, in favor of Gunga Ram Singh, and those associated with him. It is also urged, in appeal, that Koloo Singh, one of the defendants, who at first joined others of the defendants in an ikbaldavee, was afterwards allowed to retract; but I agree with the Principal Sudder Ameen in thinking that the ikbaldavee was not voluntarily made. I further concur with the Principal Sudder Ameen in holding that the plaintiff's claim to wasilât for past years is sustained by no proof whatever. There exists, therefore, no reason for disturbing the judgment of the Court below, and the appeal is dismissed. The 6th May, 1851. CASE NO. 202 of 1850. Regular appeal from the decision of MOHUN LALL AND THAKOOR DASS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus MUSSUMAT GHEESMA AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. THE object of this suit, which has been brought by the plaintiffs as paupers, is to establish a reversionary title to one-half of the entire property formerly belonging to chowdhree Oodey Chund, and to prevent the alienation of his estates in favor of chowdhree Jey Chund, adopted son of Indurjeet, who was the only son of Oodey Chund. Chowdhree Oodey Chund, who died thirty-four or thirty-five years ago, leaving large landed property, had three wives; by his first wife, he had a daughter, with whom Sheo Suhai, father of the plaintiffs, intermarried; by the defendant Thakoorain Sahiba, another wife, he had a son named Indurjeet, who died in 1825, without issue; by his third wife, he had two daughters, Holasa and Bilasa, who are also made defendants in this action. It is contended that within twelve years from the date of suit chowdhree Jey Chund has been recorded in the Collector's books as son, by adoption, and heir of Indurjeet, and that such record furnishes a cause of action to the plaintiffs, inasmuch as it constitutes an interference with the legitimate evolution of Oodey Chund's property, half of which would, but for the adoption complained of, eventually descend to the plaintiffs, and half to the offspring of Oodey Chund's third wife. It is stated, in defence, that on the death, in 1825, of Oodey Chund's son, Indurjeet, as above, his widow, Maharanee, succeeded, and that Maharanee, with the previously obtained consent of her husband, adopted the defendant, Jey Chund, in 1890, of the Sumbut year, or eighteen years prior to the institution of the suit. Maharanee survived her husband about twelve years, and the estates then passed to Thakoorain Sahiba, mother of Indurjeet. With respect to a suit alluded to in the plaint, brought by the plaintiffs on 25th September 1837, for a portion of the property left by Oodey Chund, and decided by razeenamah on the 7th June 1838, it is urged by the defendants, that the plaintiffs expressly admitted, on that occasion, their knowledge of the adoption of Jey Chund two years before, or in 1835. That suit resulted in a razeenamah, on the defendant Thakoorain Sahiba agreeing to make an allowance to the plaintiffs at the rate of one rupee per diem. The Principal Sudder Ameen has dismissed the claim, as barred by the limitation law. The rejection of the claim by the Principal Sudder Ameen is undoubtedly correct. Some stress has been laid both in the judgment of the Principal Sudder Ameen, and in the pleadings in defence, on the failure of the plaintiffs to institute the present action within twelve years from the date of Indurjeet's death, but I think unnecessarily, because, if the widow of Indurjeet Maharanee, and after her, Thakoorain Sahiba, had a title to succeed preferable to any which the plaintiffs could set up, no cause of action was offered to the plaintiffs during the life-time of Maharanee and Thakoorain Sahiba, unless on the special ground that their reversionary interests were effected by some act similar to that now complained of. The plaintiffs cannot maintain, how ever, as they are disposed to maintain, that the suit is within the legal limit, because brought within twelve years from the date of the decision, by razeenamah, of their suit in June 1838, for it is obvious that any suit, founded on an alleged non-fulfilment of the agreement then entered into, must be restricted in its object to an enforcement of the payments then promised, and said to be now withheld. It was not, as the plaintiffs desire to make out, a condition of that agreement, that neglect to provide the stipulated maintenance should throw open the question of Jey Chund's adoption. So far from it, the present demand is vitiated rather than favored by what was then done, since it might be held, not unreasonably, that any cause of action arising out of the adoption of Jey Chund was extinguished by the result of that suit. Even if it be allowed, however, that the question of the adoption has not already been finally disposed of, then certainly the present cause of action is not the record of Jey Chund's name in the Collector's books, but the act of adoption itself. The adoption is the act which, while it endowed Jey Chund with all the rights and privileges of a son actually born to Indurjeet, cut off from the plaintiffs the prospect of eventual succession under a division of Oodey Chund's entire property between his daughters and their issue. That this adoption took place in 1835 has been averred by the plaintiffs in 1837, as a fact within their knowledge, consequently, a suit brought on the 12th April 1850, as this has been, with the object of setting the adoption aside, is not brought within the period prescribed by law. The appeal is dismissed. The 10th May, 1851. Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge. CASE No. 92 of 1851. Special appeal from the decision of J. S. Clarke, Esq., Judge of Azimgurh, dated 14th January 1851. ISHREE RAI AND OTHERS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants, versus SURNAM RAI AND OTHERS, (Defendants,) Respondents. THE particulars of this case will be found at pages 3 and 4 of the printed decisions for Zillah Azimgurh, for the current year. Both parties appealed to the Judge from the decision of the Additional Principal Sudder Ameen; the plaintiffs being dissatisfied at having a portion of their claim dismissed, and the defendants at a portion being decreed against them. In appeal |