NURUL HASAN KHAN Vs. KRISHNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 9-8-1937 a document purporting to be a permanent lease was executed, by Suraj Bali and Chandra Bali, defendants 2 and 3 in favour of Nurul Hasan Khan, defendant 1. On 3-3-1947, Sri Krishna Lal and Bhabhuti instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for possession of the property covered by the perpetual lease.

(2.) They gave a pedigree with their plaint and alleged that they themselves, defendants 2 and 3 Ram Milan, and Ram Dularey were members of a joint Hindu family to which the property belonged; that defendants 2 and 3 were the kartas of the family and had executed the lease and that the lease was in excess of the power of a karta and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendant l filed a written statement in which he pleaded that Section 180 barred the suit: that the document of lease was valid and that the defendant was not a trespasser. They raised other pleas also but it is not necessary to go through them at this stage.