1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 3 against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Burdwan modifying the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought by the original plaintiff, Khantamoni Debi, for declaration of title to the property in suit.
2. The defendant No. 2 was the son of the original plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 was a mortgagee under him and the defendant No. 3 was the purchaser in execution of the property under a decree founded on the mortgage in favour of the defendant No. 1.
3. The allegations in the plaint alleged that the property formed the stridhan of Manikmani and passed on her death to her two daughters, the 2nd daughter's share reverting on her death to the original plaintiff, her sister. This is the title set up in the plaint and on which the present suit must stand or fall. No case was set up in the plaint nor was any issue framed as to whether or not the original plaintiff had obtained a title to the property by adverse possession. The original plaintiff, some time before her death, executed a deed of gift in favour of her grandsons, the present plaintiffs, the son and nephews of the defendant No. 2. The only question, therefore, that arisen on the pleadings and issues is, assuming as the lower Appellate Court has found that the property was the stridhan of Manikmani, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed in the present suit. The law is not open to doubt that stridhan inherited by female heirs does not become the latter's stridhan. The female heirs take only a Hindu woman's estate in the property. This was decided finally in the case of Sheo Shankar Lal v. Debi Sahai 25 A. 468 : 5 Bom. L.R. 828 : 13 M.L.J. 330 : 7 C.W.N. 831 : 30 I.A. 202 (P.C.). The same view had been expressed in this Court in the cases of Prankrishen Laha v. Sreemutty Noyanmoney Dassee 5 C. 222 and Huri Doyal Singh Sarmana v. Grish Chunder Mukerjee 17 C. 911. In the present case, the present plaintiffs can only succeed if the original plaintiff took an absolute interest in the property. This the original plaintiff had not and the substituted plaintiffs cannot maintain this suit. In my opinion the judgment appealed against ought to be reversed and the plaintiffs' suit dismissed. The plaintiffs-respondents must pay to the appellant his costs in this Court and in the Courts below.
4. I agree.