HARDEYA DEVI Vs. FIDDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration that she was the owner of one-fourth share in the house in dispute and she was also entitled to reside in the house in dispute.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the house in dispute belonged to Chheda Lal and after his death it went to his son Budhsen and his three grandsons Ram Chander, Ram Bharosey and Babu Ram. Budhsen and his three sons borrowed money from the firm of Moti Ram Laxmi Narain, respondent No. 2. Two decrees were obtained and in execution of those decrees the house was attached. After attachment but before the sale Budhsen died and his widow, who now claims to be the legal representative of the one-fourth share of the house, was not brought on record and the execution continued against the three judgment-debtors representing themselves and as the legal representatives of Budhsen and the house was ultimately sold and was purchased by Fiddan, respondent No. 1.

(3.) The appellant, Mst. Hardeya Devi, who is the person who filed the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, alleged that after the death of Budhsen she and her three sons became the owner of it and as Budhsen died before tho sale and the plaintiff was not brought on record as his legal representative her one-fourth share in the house did not pass to the auction-purchaser and the sale of that portion of the house is said to be invalid and void. Consequently she prayed for a declaration as stated earlier.