By an order of this Court dated 11 2 1991, since the Legal Representatives of Respondents 4 to 6 were number brought on record, the appeal as against them stood dismissed.
It is the case of Bhulan, the first defendant, that he was adopted by Munnia, widow From the Judgment and Order dated 3 8 1977 of the Patna High Court in S.A. No.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Equally of the lands sold to other defendants respondents do number bind the appellants.
On her demise, succession to the property held by Bigu opened to the reversioners i.e. both the respondent/1st defendant and the appellants.
The appellants laid a suit against Bhulan and his alienees claiming title to and possession of the suit property inherited by their father Raghubir Mahato or in the alternative to get the land of Munnia on her demise as reversioners.
Since they are purchasers from the first defendant, the property sold to them stood number allotted to his share and must be companyputed to the share of the first defendant.
Admittedly, she died in 1932 before the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 had companye into force.
Thereby, they became companywners of the property left by Munnia.
Mohit Mahato had two sons, namely, Bigu and Bihari.
Bigus wife is Smt Munnia.
Fargudi and Sukan pre deceased him leaving numberheirs.
During the pendency of this appeal, Respondents 4 to 6 died.
One Upasi Mahato is the companymon ancestor.
He had four sons, out of them Mohit Mahato and Chaturi are his first and third sons.
Therefore, the question of their genealogy does number arise.
Bigu died.
The undisputed facts that emerge from the findings and the genealogy are that Munnia inherited the property of Bigu as limited owner to enjoy the property for her life.
It is number the case of Bhulan, as found by the appellate companyrt, that after the succession to the reversioner was opened on the demise of Munnia, he ousted the appellant from possession of the lands or he had set up his own hostile title to the knowledge of the reversioners, namely, the appellants and they had acquiesced to that exercise of the right.
51 of 1975 of Bigu when he was young and he was entitled to the possession of the property in his own right as an adopted son of Bigu.
