BALADIN Vs. RAM PIAREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of my brothers Mushtaq Ahmad and V. Bhargava. After having given the matter my best consideration, I find myself in agreement with the view taken by Mushtaq Ahmad J.

(2.) It appears that one Raghunandan and his brother's widow Shrimati Ram Dulari made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act. Their written statement filed under Section 8 of the Act contained a schedule of their property. This schedule included, inter alia, an item consisting of a half share in a Kachha house and its site and four neem trees. In other words, the applicants claimed title to not more than half share in the aforesaid item of the property and conceded that the remaining half share was owned by some one else.

(3.) The learned Special Judge published the required notice under Section 11 of the Act, but in the schedule of the property the entire house, and not a moiety share only therein, was described as the property of the applicants. At the time of sending the list of property to the Collector under Section 19 (2) of the Act, the same error was repeated. The Collector held the sale and in doing so put up the entire house together with its site and all the four trees to sale as the property of the applicants. One Debi Shankar purchased the house and the site. After his death, his widow Shrimati Surja Kunwar obtained a sale certificate. Thereafter, she sold the house together with the site to one Shrimati Ram Piari and her two sons.