1. The circumstances under which this appeal has arisen areas follows:--- One Kunj Behari Singh died many years ago leaving a widow Musammat Jamna Kunwar. She died in the year 1914. After her death, two persons, Sheo Narain Singh and Chotku Singh, applied for mutation as nest reversioners. Their application was opposed by Musammat Rituraji, the respondent No. 1, who represented herself to be the daughter of Kunj Behari Singh, and raid she was as such entitled to the property. She lost her case in the Revenue Court and afterwards brought a suit for declaration of her title as the heiress of Kunj Behari Singh as against Chotku Singh and Sheo Narain Singh, the next reversioners. Her suit was decreed by the Court of first instance and that decree was confirmed, on appea), by this Court, in 1919.
2. The present plaintiffs, who allege themselves to be remoter reversioners, as compared to Sheo Narain Singh and Chatku Singh, commenced this litigation on the 17th of June, 1919, claiming possession of the property of Kunj Behari Singh against Musammat Rituraji Kunwar, and Chotku. Singh and Sheo Narain Singh, the immediate reversioners. After stating the fasts, of which we have given a brief resume, the plaintiffs say that the Chotku Singh and Sheo Narain Singh did rot bring forward evidence in the previous suit to prove that under a custom ret cut in the present plaint Musammat Rituraji Kunwar, even if she was the daughter of Kunj Behari Singh, was not entitled to succeed. It is suggested, but there is no evidence to support it, that Chotku Singh and Sheo Narain Singh did not set up this custom as a defence in the previous quit, possibly because they were in collusion with Musammat Rituraji. It may lie mentioned that in this case they gave no particulars to lay the foundation of any such custam, and these would have been necessary if the plaintiffs had been and to get over the plea that their plaint disclosed no cause of action. Tie plaintiffs say that their cause of action arose en the 2nd of January 1914, and subsequent dates, and also on the 13th of January, 1919, when the High Court confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge in favour of Musammat Rituraji Kunwar.
3. The point raised in the defence was that, on their own case, as put forward in the plaint, the plaintiffs had no cause of action to maintain the present suit. The main defence was that, on a careful reading of the plaint, it disclosed no cause of action, and it was to this matter that the Judge addressed himself in the first instance and has decided that question adversely to the plaintiffs-appellants, aid dismissed their suit.
4. The plaintiffs come here in appeal and challenge the judgment of the lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has, in a very careful judgment, discussed the various pleas put forward before him, and we agree with him in his conclusions. This is not a case in which a remoter reversioner is suing by reason of the action or inaction of a nearer reversioner to set aside an alienation by an owner with limited powers. In this case it is a suit by a person alleged to be entitled to certain property because source person with better title to that property has failed to take advantage of the rights which he had. In this case, as soon as Musammat Jamna Kanwar died in the year 1914, the succession opened out. If the ordinary Hindu Law applied, the next heir would be the daughter, Musammat Rituraji Kan war, provided she succeeded in proving that she was the daughter of the deceased and if she succeeded in meeting the alleged custom excluding daughter?. If she did not succeed because of either of the two reasons aforesaid, the property would go to Sheo Narain Singh and Chotku Singh, and if Sheo Narain Singh and Chotku Singh did not choose to avail themselves of their right to possession of the property, such inaction of theirs would not confer any rights on the plaintiffs who do not claim to be his heirs, The reasoning on this question cannot be put better than it hag been put by the learned Subordinate Judge at pages 12 and 13 of the paper book. We agree with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the present suit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.