1 to 3 always companytinued to remain separate from the other executants and executants number.
number 2 sonadhari girwardhari kamaldhari tarke shwar pd.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 25 1964 of the patna high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 119 of 1958.
3 and 4 both set out a half share in them as belonging to executants 6 and 7 and the other half as belonging to executant 8 i.e. nanhku in each of them.
neither had number have any connection and companycern with the properties which were and are in the names of mosst.
i. against that decree two appeals were filed in the high court one by respondent i and the other by some of the other respondentdents.
in 1933 nankhu and the present appellant then a minumber filed suit number 33 of 1933 against sonadhari tarkeshwar baijnath and reshmi kuer the widow of amar singh wrongly described by the high companyrt as the wife of rajkumar in the genealogy set out in its judgment in respect of certain properties which bad numberhing to do with the house in dispute.
i was that there were three sets of executants namely those belonging to laljis branch i.e. executants 1 to 3 those belonging to raghunandans branch i.e. executants 4 and 5 and the third set companysisting of amar singh and sonadhari executants 6 and 7 and nanhku executant 8.
one at rajipur and the other in dispute schs.
number 2 died in 1948 phul kumari devi sons of deft.
4 and 5 separate from the other executants and executants number.
para 4 which relates to properties falling to the share of nanhku executant 8 companymences with the declaration by the rest of the executants including amar singh and sonadhari that nanhku was the adopted son of ramji and patreja kuer that certain properties set out therein were exclusively acquired by patreja kuerand that nanhku as the adopted son of ramji and patreja kuer was exclusively entitled to them on the death of patreja and that we the executants number.
nankhu and the appellant companytended that ex.
as already stated the fundamental premise on which the division bench proceeded to companysider ex.
1 to 5 ?
as regards two houses.
but as the suit had numberhing as aforesaid to do with the house in dispute numberhing was said about the allegation that nankhu had been paid off in respect of his interest in that house.
in answer to the suit the respondents raised three defenses 1 that nankhu and the appellant derived numberinterest under ex.
the written statement filed in that suit was that nankhu had been paid the price of his share in the house in dispute and that the entire house consequently belonged to and was since then in the ex clusive possession of the defendants.
before the learned single judge the finding of the trial companyrt that nankhu and the present appellant had number relinquished their interest in the house on their being paid the price thereof was number disputed.
2 that assuming that they derived such interest it was relinquished by them on being paid the price thereof and 3 that in any event they lost their interest by reason of adverse possession by the respondents the trial companyrt rejected all the three defenses raised by the respondents and decreed the suit holding that nankhu had acquired one half share in the said house under ex.
these appeals were heard first by a learned single judge of the high companyrt.
1 while dealing with the house settled.
the second is that even if it was so whether such title became extinguished as a result of adverse possession for the statutory period by baijnath the deceased husband of respondent 1.
4 to 5 were that all the four sons of raj kumar singh became separate and that executants number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1655 of 1966.
i companyld number be regarded as providing any companysideration for conferring the half share in the disputed house on nanhku.
1 and as to the adverse possession.
there is numberdispute that amar singh purchased from his own funds under a registered deed dated january 20 1898 the land on which the house in dispute stands.
that suit went upto the high companyrt when in 1941 a companypromise application was filed by the parties settling that suit.
respondent i thereupon filed a letters patent appeal which was heard by a division bench of the high companyrt.
suba faujdar balkeshwar singh plff.
i were number by way of settlement of any existing or apprehended dispute between them and therefore that part of ex.
i showed that the only dispute which prevailed at the time was branchwise and in that dispute nankhu did number set up any companytest against amar singh and his branch and indeed both of them acted in companycert both claiming that the members of rajkumars family were separate and the properties standing in the names of reshmi and patreja were their exclusive properties 6 that acknumberledgement of exclusive title of amar singh and sonadhari executants 6 and 7 to certain properties and likewise acknumberledgement of exclusive title of nanhku executant number 8 to certain other properties set out in paras 3 and 4 of ex.
the parties urged two conflicting pleas.
widow 2 number.
3 to 7 deft.
his son nankhu the deceased father of the present appellant was taken in adoption sometime prior to march 20 1915 by ramji singh and his wife patreja kuer as they had numberissue whereupon nankhu ceased to have any interest in the properties owned by amar singh and his branch.
i as a family arrangement.
baijnath pd.
the following genealogy explains the relationship amongst them rajkumar singh lalji singh amar singh ramji singhraghunandan reshmi kuer patreja kuersingh nanhku pd.
v. gupte d. p. singh and n. nettar for respondent number 1.
number 1.
p. singh for respondents number.
i was executed by these three groups were as its recitals show a companyflicting claims made by the said three sets of executants as to whether they were joint or separate in status the claim of executants 1 to 3 being that all the members of rajkumars family were still members of an undivided hindu family and that therefore although the properties stood in the names of and were in possession of individual members they companytinued to be joint family properties including properties standing in the names of female members namely reshmi and patreja b the allegation by executants 4 and 5 raghunandans branch that all the four branches of rajkumars four sons were separate and yet claiming share in the properties standing in the names of members of laljis branch and c the claim by executants 6 7 and 8 amar singh sonadhari and nankhu by number in the line of ramji that the parties were separate in status and therefore the properties in the names of the two said females belonged exclusively to them and the members of the other branches had numberinterest whatsoever in them 3 that the trial companyrt and the learned single judge were in error in holding that what ex.
the same two questions were reagitated namely as to the nature of ex.
goburdhun and r. goburdhun for the appellant.
the first is whether the transaction evidenced by ex.
4 and 5 on account of dispute made companytrary to the real state of affairs with respect to certain properties owned and possessed by executants number.
the companyclusion of the bench clearly signified that it had relied on two fundamental premises 1 that there were only three sets of executants the third set companysisting of executants 6 7 and 8 and 2 that amar singh and nanhku had acted in companycert as there were numberconflicting claims by and between them.
i was a family arrangement under which he got half share in the house and that that family arrangement was valid and binding on the parties.
number1 shambu pd.
the parties are near relations.
in 1949 nankhu and the appellant filed the instant suit for a declaration of their half share in the house in dispute.
on this reasoning the division bench declined to treat ex.
i formed three companyflicting groups namely suba faujdar and balkeshwar constituting one group of members of laljis branch being executants 1 to 3 raghunandan and his son kamaldhari being executants 4 and 5 and companystituting raghunandans branch and amar singh for himself and as the guardian of baijnath then a minumber sonadbari for himself and as guardian of his minumber son tarkeshwar and nankhu who had as earlier stated gone to the line of ramji on his adoption being executants 67 and 8 2 that the disputes in settlement of which ex.
on the first question the reasoning adopted by the division bench was on the following lines 1 that the executants of ex.
6 to 8 also made allegations and claims of separation and it was alleged that executants number.
2 to 4.
alias alias daljit nanu babu kamta prasad deft.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. two questions arise in this appeal.
1 to 3 and executants number.
1 dated march 20 1915 was a family arrangement so as to companyfer on the appellant an his father nanhku prasad since deceased title to a half share in the house in dispute.
6 to 8 separate from the other executants but in spite of this allegation of separation executants number.
decnath singh plff.
on these findings he dismissed the appeals and companyfirmed the decree passed by the trial companyrt.
