Moti Mahton and another vs Debal Mahton and another

Mohamad Noor, J.—This appeal is by the plaintiffs who sued for a declaration that certain alienation by a female life-estate-holder was not binding upon them, and for other consequential reliefs. The estate belonged to one Hari Mahto, and on his death he was succeeded by his son Kalpu Mahto. When Kalpu died, on account of his widow remarrying in the sagai form, the, properties devolved upon Kalpu Mahton''s mother, Mt. Lalo, who continues to be in possession as a limited estate-holder. The plaintiffs are the maternal grandsons of Hari Mahto and sister''s son of Kalpu Mahto and under the Act of Indian Legislature passed in 1929 they are at present prima facie the next reversioners of Kalpu Mahto and as such they instituted the suit questioning the alienation of Mt. Lalo. Defendant 1 was the transferee from Mt. Lalo. Unfortunately the plaint was not properly drawn up. Though all the facts stated above are there, the plaintiffs instead of claiming to be the heirs of Kalpu Mahto, being his sister''s son, have based their claim as being the maternal grandsons of Hari Mahto. The plaint expressly mentions that on the death of Hari Mahto, Kalpu Mahto succeeded to the estate, and on the death of Kalpu Mahto the property is in possession of Mt. Lalo.

The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs'' suit, and on the defendants'' appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision on a somewhat untenable technical ground. He has held that as the plaintiffs claimed the reliefs not as heirs of Kalpu Mahto but as heirs of Hari Mahto the suit must fail. In my opinion the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be upheld. The duty of the parties is to state facts in their pleadings and it is for the Court to apply the law. No doubt it is desirable that the basis on which the plaintiff relies for his relief be indicated in the plaint, but if all the facts are stated, the suit cannot fail for its omission. In this case, as I have said, all the facts on which the plaintiffs based their claim were stated in the plaint. They definitely stated that the property belonged to Hari Mahto and on his death it devolved upon Kalpu Mahto and is in possession of Kalpu''s mother as a life-estate-holder. They also stated their relationship with Hari Mahton, namely that they were his maternal grandsons. It therefore clearly follows that they were the nephews (sister''s sons of Kalpu.) Under these circumstances it was for the Courts to apply the correct law and decide whether or not the plaintiffs were the heirs of Kalpu Mahto. There has been no prejudice to the defendants. The suit was tried on the footing that the plaintiffs claimed to be the heirs of Kalpu Mahto under the Act of 1929. I would set aside the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and remand the case to him for rehearing of the appeal on its merits and its disposal according to law. As the situation arose on account of a somewhat confused statement in the plaint, the parties will bear their own costs of this Court.