Now this dispute, seriously pressed by both sides, was referred to arbitration.
Mohan Dei Oct. 1929 Kishan Lal Mahabir Prasad Husband Narain Das d. 21 5 1940 d. 1921 Shri Kishan Das Mst.
The defendants appeal.
Mohan Dei the defendants grandmother succeeded to a limited estate.
First, there was property which they say belonged to her.
Mohan Dei possessed into two categories.
Next, there were properties which belonged exclusively to her father and to which she succeeded as daughter.
On the facts which number emerge it is evidence that Brijlal had numberright and that this hopes of one day succeeding as reversioner were remote.
1 Deft.
Brijlal died in 1889 or 1890 and the boy did number die till March.
On Shanker Lals death disputes arose between Shanker Lals fathers brothers son Brijlal the plaintiffs grandfather and the defendants grandmother Mst.
2 Ghas Ram Onkar Prasad The dispute is about property which, according to the plaintiffs, formed part of Shanker Lals estate.
This dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was delivered.
Deoki Jugal Kishore Amar Nath March 1929 d. 1894 Plff 1.
Mohan Dei.
They divide the property which their grandmother Mst.
These are properties which according to them, she purchased or obtained under the mortgages in her own right.
Brijlal claimed the entire estate by survivorship, his allegation being that Shanker Lal dies in a state of jointness with him and that all the properties were joint family properties.
A division was effected accordingly and ever since, that is to say from 21 12 1884, the date of the award, down to 26 3 1941, the date of the suit, each branch has been in separate and uninterrupted possession of the properties respectively allotted to it and each has been dealing with them as absolute owner.
The defendants admits that Shanker Lal was separate from the other branch of the family.
Mohan Dei had a son Shri Kishan Das who was the next presumptive reversioner and as the boy was a goods deal younger than Brijlal Brijlals chances were slim.
Mohan Dei was given the suit properties as absolute owner and the rest of the estate then in dispute was given to Brijlal.
Mohan Deis son Shri Kishan Das was alive and was the next presumptive reversioner.
Brijlals sons therefore had numbermore right to that portion of his estate which was assigned to Brijlal than Brijlal himself.
Mohan Deis son Shri Kishan Das predeceased her.
The plaintiff deny this and say she obtained only a limited estate.
Under the Mst.
Actually, the boy survived Brijlal by the nearly forty years.
The reversion opened out on her death in October 1929 and the plaintiff are entitled as the next reversioners, for Mst.
Plff 2.
Dhiyan Singh Jai Bhagwan Singh Deft.
The plaintiffs state that the two branches of family were separate at all material times that on Shanker Lals death in 1884 his daughter Mst.
Bose, J. This is a litigation between two branches a family whose companymon ancestor was one Megh Raj Singh The family tree is a follows Megh Raj Singh Jawahar Singh Madan Singh Shanker Lal d. 1884 Brijlal d. 1890 Daughter Mst.
