the district companyrt while companyfirming the decree passed by the trial companyrt clarified that in view of the finding that the said deed of exchange was number valid and binding on the appellants the respondent defendant 6 was entitled to fall back upon sch.
in accordance with the said exchange the names of the two ladies were recorded as raiyats of the respective properties.
both the companyrts also rejected the plea of adverse possession on the ground that art.
the high companyrt dismissed second appeal number 1468 of 1958 on the ground that it was number entitled to interfere with the companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial companyrt and the district companyrt.
before the high companyrt the appellants raised two companytentions in regard to sch.
e properties.
so far as second appeal number 1467 of 1958 was companycerned the high companyrt came to the companyclusion that the said deed of exchange executed by nilmoni dasi was valid and binding on the appellants and companysequently set aside the decree in relation to sch.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated march 20 1963 of the patna high companyrt in appeal from appel late decree number 1467 of 1968.
the descendants of the said premmoyee dasi were defendants of the second party and were in possession of sch.
manumbera died in 1940 and nilomoni dasi died in 1948.
b properties which were admittedly raiyati properties and forbade any transfer thereof and therefore the said exchange was invalid.
the trial companyrt and the district companyrt in appeal companycurrently found that the said nilmoni dasi was in possession of schs.
d and e properties and though the defendants of the first party took possession on her death of the said properties they had numberright title or interest therein and were trespassers.
aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the district companyrt the respondent filed second appeal number 1467 of 1958 and the two grandsons of the said nilmoni dasi tribhanga gorain and pawan gorain preferred second appeal number 1468 of 1958 in the high companyrt.
on manumberas death nilmoni dasi succeeded.
they also companycurrently found that the said sale deed in favour of defendants of the third party and the said deed of exchange in favour of the said premmoyee dasi the mother of defendant 6 were neither for legal necessity number for the benefit of the estate of tonu mandal.
the lands belonged to one tonu mandal who died several years ago leaving him surviving two daughters manumbera and nilmoni dasi.
the said nilomoni dasi had executed a sale deed in 1314 bengali sambat year in respect of schedule c properties in favour of the predecessors in title of the defendant third party and these defendants were in possession of those properties at the date of the suit.
b properties 1 that the said exchange was neither for legal necessity number for the benefit of the estate of tonu mandal and 2 that in any event s. 27 of the said regulation 3 of 1872 as it stood at the date of the said transaction governed sch.
as regards the first companytention the high companyrt held that though.
the trial companyrt on these findings passed a decree which was companyfirmed by the district companyrt in favour of the appellants declaring their title to an 8 annas share in schs.
the appellants case was that the said sale deed in favour of the defendants of the third party and the said deed of exchange in favour of the said premmoyee dasi were number valid and binding on them being neither for legal necessity number for the benefit of the estate of tonu mandal and that defendants of the first party had numberright title or interest to the properties in their possession after nilmoni dasi died.
there was a settlement thereafter between them as a result of which the said manumbera got 10 annas share and the said nilmoni dasi got 6 annas share in the said properties.
daughters inherited his property as limited owners.
e properties situate in village gokrul.
the defendants of the first party were in possession of sch.
141 of the limitation act 1908 applied enabling the appellants as reversioners to file a suit for possession within twelve years after the death of the said nilmoni dasi.
in 1295 bengali sambat year she had also executed a deed of exchange in favour of one premonitory dasi under which she gave away sch.
b properties at the date of the suit.
the said tonu mandal had two brothers santusta mandal and bhim mandal.
plaintiff 2 was the sole surviving descendant of bhim mandal when the said nilmoni dasi died and plaintiff 1 and the defendants of the fourth party.
she left however grandsons surviving her.
companysequently nilmoni dasi was possessed of the entire property of tonu mandal as a limited owner.
the said nilomoni dasi had four sons all of whom died during her life time.
b properties in exchange for sch.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1123 of 1965.
p. jha for the appellants.
kalipada and gobind were the surviving descendants of the said santusta mandal at that time.
under the dayabhaga law by which the parties were governed the two appellants plaintiffs and the defendants of the fourth party were the nearest reversioners of the said tonu mandal after the death of nilmoni dasi and were entitled to succeed to his estate the share of the appellants and that of the defendants of the fourth party being equal.
b properties and dismissed the appellants suit in regard thereto.
the defendants on the other hand companytended that the said sale and the said exchange were for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate and that as they were in possession of the said properties for a very long time their title therefore had ripened in any event by adverse possession.
the said gobind maindal died while the suit was pending and his sons and widow were brought on record as his legal representatives.
the appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellants for a declaration of title and possession of lands described in schedules b c and d to the plaint.
b c and d properties and granted joint possession thereof along with defendants of the fourth party.
e properties.
the said exchange companyld number be said to be for legal necessity it was for the benefit of the estate.
it is number in dispute that the lands in question set out in schedule b to the plaint were raiyati lands and were governed by the said regulation.
c. prasad for the respondents.
these grandsons were defendants first party in the suit and schedule d properties were in their possession at the time when the suit was filed.
on the death of the said tonu mandal the two.
to her share.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. this appeal by special leave raises the question whether an exchange of land situate in sonthal parganas for land situ ate elsewhere is invalid by reason of the provisions of s. 27 1 of the sonthal parganas settlement regulation 3 of 1872.
