The plaintiffs claimed to have derived their title to the lands in suit by purchase from the defendants second party by and under a registered deed of sale dated 19 7 1942.
They claimed in para.
Malda Kuer Defdt.
The suit was companytested by the defendants first party.
Bhagjogna Kari Rai Budha Kuer Janki Risal Udit Sudit Pargas Sharda Rai Rai Rai Rai Rai Rai Gobind Bator Bishun Soman Rai Rai Rai Rai Mst.
They disputed the companyrectness of the pedigree table annexed to the plaint and in paras.
t. 5 Janki Rai and Sharda Rai apparently left numberissue.
19 of the written statement that the lands of Bator Rai defendant 4 and Singhasan Rai defendant 5 were in the possession of the defendants first party as Shikmidars for over 20 years and that they had acquired occupancy rights in those lands according to law.
The plaintiffs case was that on the deaths of Maida Kuer widow of Gobind Rai find of Budha Kuer widow of Kari Rai, Bator Rai defendant 4 and Singhasan Rai defendant 5 as their nearest reversioners inherited the shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai in the properties in suit.
7 and 8 of their written statement purported to set out what, according to them, was the real genealogical table.
4 Adhikari Kuer Singhasan Rai Defdt.
They further pleaded in para.
The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs for a declaration of their title to, and companyfirmation of their possession of, certain lands and other ancillary reliefs.
The relationship of the defendants second party was shown in a pedigree table annexed to the plaint and reproduced below MILIK RAI Sheo Sahai Rai Ram Sahay Rai Doma Rai Mst.
18 of the written statement that on the deaths of Maida Kuer and Budha Kuer, the father of the defendants 1 and 2 came into possession of the shares of Gobind Rai and Kari Rai as their nearest reversioner and that Bator Rai defendant 4 or Singhasan Rai defendant 5 had numberconnection or companycern with those shares.
6 Def.
It will be observed that Shikmi rights were claimed under Bator Rai defendant 4 and Singhasan Rai defendant 5 with respect to their respective shares in the lands in suit and number with respect to the shares that were of Gobind Rai or Kari Rai.
Thus at the date of the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiffs the defendants second party, namely, Bator Rai defendant 4 , Singhasan Rai defendant 5 and Mt. Adhikari Kuer defendant 6 had the entire 16 annas share in the properties in suit and the plaintiffs were bona fide purchasers for value from them and as such filed the suit for the reliefs already mentioned.
R. Das, J. This is an appeal by the defendants first party against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Patna Manohar Lall and Ray JJ.
dated 23 2 1948, which reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge at Chapra, dated 5 4 1945, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
