MUKUND DEO DEAD Vs. MAHADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to lands which originally belonged to one Beli Ram son of Ananda. Beli Ram died leaving him surviving his wife Rukhma Bai and his daughter Vitha Bai, and on his death his property devolved upon Rukhma Bai as a limited owner. By a deed dated July 26, 1916 Rukhma Bai sold the lands to one Mukund Deo for Rs. 600/- (O.S.) and delivered possession of the lands to the vendee. Rukhma Bai died in 1940. The respondents to this appeal who were the sons of Vitha Bai commenced on February 21, 1944 an action against the transferee Mukund Deo in the court of the Munsiff, Mominabad Taluk, for a decree for possession of the lands sold by Rukhma Bai. They alleged in their plaint that they were governed by the Mayukha school of Hindu Law, that the sale of the lands by Rukhma Bai was not supported by legal necessity and that on the death of Rukhma Bai they became entitled to the lands as the nearest reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram. Mukund Deo contested the claim contending, inter alia, that the sale by Rukhma Bai was for legal necessity, that Vitha Bai had survived Rukhma Bai and that Vitha Bai had during her lifetime assented to the alienation and had thereafter filed a suit for declaration, that the sale was not binding upon her but had withdrawn the same after entering into a compromise with Mukund Deo, admitting his title to the lands. The Trial Court reflected the contentions noised by Mukund Deo. The Court held that the sale was not for purposes of legal necessity, that Vitha Bai had predeceased Rukhma Bai, and that the plaintiffs as the nearest reversioners to the estate of Beli Ram on the death of Rukhma Bai were entitled to a decree for possession claimed. In appeal to the Additional Sub-Judge, Mominabad the decree of the Trial Court was reversed. The learned Appellate Judge held that the sale was supported by legal necessity and that in any event as Vitha Bai had during the lifetime of Rukhma Bai attempted to impeach the alienation in favour of Mukund Deo, and had thereafter entered into a compromise admitting Mukund Deo's title and acknowledging the validity of the sale, the plaintiffs who could only claim as heirs to Vitha Bai who had survived. her mother Rukhma Bai had no valid claim to the lands.

(2.) In second appeal No. 544 of 1947 the High Court of Hyderabad by judgment dated July 17, 1953 reversed the decree of the First Appellate Court and restored the decree sale the Trial Court. In the view of the High Court, Mukund Deo failed to establish that the sale was for legal necessity. The High Court also held that the conduct of. Vitha Bai in entering into a compromise and withdrawing her declaratory suit could not confer a valid title on Mukund Deo. They further held that the testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiffs that Vitha Bai had predeceased Rukhma Bai was "preferable" to the evidence lad by the defendant Mukund Deo. With special leave, the heirs and the legal representatives of Mukund Deo who died since the decree of the High Court have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The High Court disagreed with the view of the First Appellate Court on the question whether the sale to Mukund Deo was supported by legal necessity and also on the question whether Vitha Bai had predeceased Rukhma Bai, Counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court had, in second appeal, no jurisdiction to set aside the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court. In so arguing, counsel assumed that the jurisdiction of the High Court in deciding the second appeal before it was derived from S. 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That assumption is, however, not true. When the suit was filed the lands in dispute were situate within the territory of H.E.H. the Nizam of Hyderabad and the suit filed by the respondents had to be heard and disposed of according to the relevant provisions of the code of Cevil Procedure in force in the State of Hyderabad. The Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code (Act 31 of 1328 Fasli) was enacted in the Urdu language, and the following is a rendering into English of the material part of S. 602 of that Code, which has been accepted by counsel appearing before us as correct: