1. This appeal must fail on several grounds.
2. It appears that one Kanahia had three sons Byikkan, Ghasi and Bhola. The three brothers who were Jats by caste, owned jointly an occupancy holding. Bhola died leaving behind him a widow by karao marriage, Sis Kunwar. Udey Ram the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was Sis Kunwar's son, even if he was not a son of Bhola.
3. When Bhola died some time about 1912 or 1913, his brother Bhikkan's sons, the present appellants, were both minors. One of them is still a minor. On the death of Bhola, Ghasi and Sis Kunwar each applied for mutation of names in the revenue records. A compromise was arrived at, An application was made to the revenue Court that. Sis Kunwar's name should be recorded with respect to a third share in Bhola's place. On the same date a registered agreement was drawn up, to which Sis Kunwar and Ghasi were parties. Ghasi purported to act for himself and his nephews, though he did not say so in the opening portion of the document. It was agreed and settled that during her lifetime or till her remarriage, if she remarried, Sis Kunwar should be in possession of the third share of Bhola. On the death or remarriage of Sis Kunwar, Udey Ram would get a third share in this one-third share of Bhola and the remaining two-thirds share in the aforesaid one-third share would be taken, in equal shares, by Ghasi and his nephews, the sons of Bhikkan.
4. There was a litigation for recovery of profits between Udey Ram and Sis Kunwar on one hand and Ghasi and his nephews on the other. The case came up to this Court ultimately on 10th January 1924. The suit of Sis Kunwar was decreed and the right of Udey Ram was left undecided. It appears that Sis Kunwar has remarried and, thereupon, her son Udey Ram has instituted the suit for recovery of one-third share out of the one third belonging to Bhola.
5. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance against all the three defendants. An appeal was filed by the present appellant Budhu and Kale and Ghasi filed a cross-objection. The cross-objection of Ghasi was dismissed on the ground that it did not lie. The appeal of Budhu and Kale, the present appellants, was dismissed on the merits. It was held that Udey Ram was entitled to enforce the contract entered into by her mother and Ghasi, as representing his nephews.
6. In this Court several points have been raised in the grounds of appeal but the point that was argued was that the plaintiff, not being a son of Bhola could claim nothing under the compromise entered into between Sis Kunwar and Ghasi. The simple answer to this contention is that Udey Ram has already got a decree against Ghasi who is the only person who is entitled to succeed Bhola. If the decree against Ghasi be a good one, the appellants, who have no right to the property, cannot object to it. I do not propose to discuss the grounds on which the lower Court has proceeded, because, in my opinion, the ground stated above is really conclusive. A third party cannot impeach a title which has been obtained as against the real owner, on the simple ground that third party has also been arrayed as a defendant in the suit.
7. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.