KIRANSWAROOP RAJARAM Vs. RAGUNATH PRASAD SAWALDAS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by Raghunath Prasad, Kedarnath and Hiralal against Kiran Swaroop and Mt. Haidari for the possession of an open land together with a Chabutra standing, thereon and for mesne profits.

(2.) BEFORE me it was not disputed that Mt. Ludako was the owner of the property in suit and that on 3 -4 -1939 she mortgaged the property with possession in favour of the Plaintiffs; that after the mortgage she remained in possession of the property as a tenant of the mortgagees until her death; and that on 3 -7 -1947 Mt. Haidari, as a legal representative of Mt. Ludako, sold the property to Kiran Swaroop and that the sale was valid.

(3.) THE Bombay case is relevant only in so far as it explains the real nature and scope of Section 68(1)(d), T.P. Act. The other case cited by Mr. Motilal Gupta, namely - 'Ranba v. Bansilal', AIR 1953 Hyd 231 (P), is more apposite.