CHOTE LAL Vs. MANGALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a property, house No. 211, in village Pareli, Pargana Haidrabad, district Kheri.

(2.) The facts of this case are that this house belongs to one Chandan, He had two sons Bhanj and Bhawani, Bhawani had three sons, Baldeo, Niranjan Lal, and Mangali. Baldeo's widow was Tikana and their son was Gulab. On 5-10-1929 Baldeo mortgaged this house along with some cane crop and a she-buffalo for a loan of Rs. 250/- with one Pandit Jagannath. The plaintiff Chhotey Lal had obtained a decree previous to this mortgage on 27-10-1927 against Niranjan Lal and in execution of the said decree this house along with another house, No. 204, was attached.. The property does not appear to have been sold under that attachment. But on 1-2-1930 Niranjan Lal mortgaged these two houses to the plaintiff. On 27-5-1937 Niranjan Lal converted the mortgage into a sale. The plaintiff was never able to obtain possession of either of the houses. In the year 1938, after obtaining the sale deed from Niranjan Lal, the plaintiff brought a suit for possession against Sm. Tikana and her son Gulab (as Baldeo was dead), Niranjan Lal and Mangali, In this suit counsel for Gulab came and said that he had no concern with the property in dispute and he wanted exemption from the suit. It appears that Gulab along with, his mother were exempted from the suit and a compromise decree was obtained by virtue of which Chhote Lal was given possession over house No. 204 while over the other house, No. 211, possession was not delivered to Chottey Lal the plaintiff. Thereafter the present suit was filed out of which this second appeal arises for possession on the ground that on 1-5-1941 the plaintiff obtained a sale deed from Gulab of this house for a sum of Rs. 50/-.

(3.) The plea of the defendant, inter alia, was that the plaintiff had no right to bring the suit because his predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Gulab, had already made a statement in the previous suit that he had no concern with this property. There were other pleas also, but we are not now concerned with the other pleas raised and the only question argued was about estoppel.