The defendant in her written statement denied this claim and companytended that Birbhum ghatwalis governed by Regulation XXIX of 1814 are number and cannot be in the nature of joint family property but that the person who succeeds and holds the tenure as ghatwal is the sole proprietor and owner thereof.
Did Kali Prasad die in a state of jointness with Sarju Prasad Singh ?
Issues 2, 3 and 4 were found by the trial Judge in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Whether the plaintiff or the defendant is entitled to succeed to the properties in suit ?
Are the ghatwals the sole proprietors of the ghatwalis for the time being as alleged by the defendant ?
38 of 1946 arising out of decree dated the 18th December, 1945, of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar in Title Suit No.
Did the ghatwalis in question form joint family property of Kali Prasad Singh, his ancestors in the direct line and of Sarju Prasad Singh and the plaintiff?
It was claimed that the late Tikait Kali Prasad Singh and the plaintiff were members of a joint Mitakshara family and that he alone as the eldest member of the eldest surviving line of the descendants of the companymon ancestor was entitled to succeed to them.
It was companymon ground between the parties that in case the properties were held to be the separate properties of Kali Prasad Singh, the widow was entitled to succeed to them.
The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues Whether succession to the ghatwalis in question is governed by the customs alleged in para 7 of the plaint ?
As a result of these findings the plaintiffs suit was decreed with companyts.
It was pleaded that the properties being the exclusive and separate properties of the ghatwal for the time being, the defendant, his widow, was entitled to suc ceed to them in preference to the plaintiff under the Mitak shara school of Hindu law which admittedly governed the family of the parties.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 8th Febru ary, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Manohar Lall and Mahabir Prasad JJ .
1 of 1939.
the genealogy of the companytestants appears from the following pedigree table Digbijoy Singh Gurohari SinghKanhai Singh Bhairo Singh Balram Singh Ghatwal I I Pratar Singh I I I I I Banwari Singh Pitambar Katku Singh Bharat Singh Died Ghatwal issueless Kharagdhari Singh Ghatwal Ram Chandra Singh Ghatwal I I Brijbehari Singh Sarju Prasad Singh Ghatwal Original plaintiff I I Krishna Prasad Singh Hargobind Prasad Singh Ghatwal Substituted plaintiff I I Kali Prasad Singh Durga Prasad Ghatwal Died issueless Phaldani Kumari Defendant Tikait Kali Prasad Singh, the last gaddidar of Pathrol, died in the year 1935.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He belonged to the Baisi Chaurasi clan.
87 of 1950.
MAHAJAN J. The question involved in the appeal relates to the right of succession to six Birbhum ghatwalis governed by Regulation XXIX of 1814, annexed to Gaddi Pathrol and lying within Tappasarath in the Santhal Parganas.
was delivered by Mahajan J. Fazl Ali J. delivered a separate judgment.
in Appeal No.
Phaldani Kumari as the next ghatwal and entitled to be maintained in possession of the ghatwali estate on the 30th November, 1936, sarju Prasad Singh brought the suit out of which this appeal arises in forma pauperis in the companyrt of the Subor dinate Judge of Deoghar for possession of the ghatwalis.
C. Dey S.C. Ghose, with him for the appellant.
The Judgment of Mehr Chand Mahajan and Vivian Bose JJ.
C. Setalvad Kanhaiyaji, with him for the respondent.
November 29.
On the 29th November, 1935, the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division recognized Smt.
In paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the plaint it was alleged that the ghatwalis in suit were joint family property and were im partible by custom that succession to them was governed by the law of lineal primogeniture that the females and persons claiming through them were altogether excluded from inheritance.
