GANGA PRASAD Vs. LALA SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession.

(2.) The facts of this case are simple although some of the points involved are not altogether free from difficulty. The houses in dispute in this suit originally belonged to Chunni Lal who had two sons, Jagannath and Gopal Krishna. Chunni Lal and Jagannath made a mortgage of these houses on the 1st June, 1927, in favour of one Mst. Champo for a sum of Rs. 3000/ -. Subsequently it appears that Chunni Lal fell into arrears in the matter of income tax dues and these houses were sold for the realization of the arrears of income tax on the 24th July, 1931. The houses were purchased by one Raja Ram Bhargava who obtained a sale certificate. Raja Ram Bhargava sold his rights acquired at the auction sale in favour of Behari Lal on the 21st November, 1936. The mortgagee rights which vested in Mst. Champo also changed hands and were purchased by Sohan Lal on the 24th September 1937. On the 30th August, 1940 Behari Lal Shukla who had purchased the houses from Raja Ram Bhargava executed a sale deed in respect of those houses in favour of Ram Ghulam the original Plaintiff. On the 31st August, 1940, Sohan Lal who had purchased the mortgagee rights from Champo brought a suit on the basis of the mortgage, for Rs. 6,500/ - and a decree was obtained by him. Ram Ghulam, then brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal, on the 4th May 1953. Sohan Lal, Defendant No. 7 was not originally made a Defendant but was subsequently impleaded on the 12th April, 1944, as it transpired that he had obtained a sale deed dated the 1st May, 1943 from Jagannath. All the Defendants including Defendant No. 7 contested the suit but the main contest was on behalf of Sohan Lal. He alleged that the auction sale for the recovery of arrears of income tax was invalid as the tehsildar who held the auction had no right to sell the property and that there had been no proper confirmation of sale. The Plaintiff had, therefore, acquired no rights from the transferee of Raja Ram Bhargava, the original purchaser at the auction. It was also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation and that the sale deed obtained by Ram Ghulam was a fraudulent transaction and was obtained to defeat and deley the creditors.

(3.) A replication was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs in which it was alleged that the deed obtained by Sohan Lal was a transaction made during the pendency of the suit and as such was had on the ground of his pendens.