The Act came into force in 1937.
Thereafter the plaintiffs instituted a statutory suit under Order 21, Rule 63, CPC for a declaration of their title to the suit properties and for possession of the same.
The suit property originally belonged to the Hindu joint family companysisting of one Bhagwan Das and his son Rameshwar Lall.
Rameshwar Lall died as seen earlier in 1933 or 1934.
Bhagwan Das dies sometime in 1944 or 1945 leaving behind him his widow Mahadei, his daughter in law and to grand daughters.
But the same was reversed by the High Court.
5 for possession of the suit properties.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt and that decree was affirmed by the 1st appellate companyrt.
Rameshwar Lall died some time in 1933 or 1934, leaving behind him his widow jaidei, his two daughters, his father and mother After the death of Rameshwar Lall, Bhagwan Das was the sole surviving companyarcener in his family.
The plaintiffs obtained a decree against defendant No.
That objection was upheld by the execution companyrt.
But it is companytended that she obtained a share in the property as one of the heirs of Bhagwan Das who died after the Act came into force.
The facts as found by the High Court, which are numbermore in dispute may number be stated.
The suit was one under Order 21, Rule 63,.
When they levied execution of the decree, defendants 1 to 4 objected to the execution alleging that they were in possession of the suit premises in their own right and that they were number liable to be evicted.
S. Hegde, J. Defendants 1 to 4 in the suit are the appellants in this appeal by special leave.
Respondents 1 and 2 were the plaintiffs therein.
