NAN BACHCHAN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the defendants Nanbachcha and Rajaram arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff- respondents to set aside an auction sale of the house in question in an execution case.

(2.) THE relevant pedigree of the plaintiff-respondents as set out in the plaint is as follows: THE plaintiffs claimed to be members of a joint Hindu family and the house in dispute was said to be the property of that joint Hindu family. THE defendant No. 2 Raja Ram filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against Hanuman Prasad and Gopal Das, the defendants 3 and 4 respectively, being suit No. 614 of 1960 in the court of Munsif West, Allahabad. A decree for a sum of Rs. 800 being arrears of rent was passed in that suit against defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Defendant No. 2 put that decree into execution and got attached and sold the said house. It was purchased by defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 4100. THE plaintiffs alleged that the said property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of that decree inasmuch as it was a joint family property, and the decree passed in Suit No. 614 of 1960 being a personal decree against defendants 3 and 4 was not binding on the plaintiffs. THEy therefore, alleged that the sale of the said property in favour of defendant No. 1 was illegal and void, and was, therefore liable to be set aside.

(3.) AGAINST that decision the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Allahabad. The appellate court below disagreeing with the trial court held that the suit was not barred by time. It, however, affirmed the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs are the co-owners of the disputed house and are in possession over the same. On these findings the appellate court below allowed the appeal and modifying the decree passed by the trial court, set aside the auction sale of the house in dispute to the extent of the plaintiffs' 8/9th share therein.