BIMAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. MANMATHA NATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments of the courts below. The question which now awaits my decision Is a narrow one, namely the decision of issue No. 7 which runs as follows: "Is the defendant entitled to get any compensation for improvement effected? If so, what?" This issue arose under the following circumstances. The disputed property belonged to one Gopal Das. Gopal Das died leaving a widow Charubala, a son Satya Charan and three daughters Mrinalini, Kali Rani & Chapala. On the death of Gopal Das the property devolved on his son Satya Charan. Satya Charan having died the estate devolved on Charubala. Charubala, by three documents executed on the same date, namely, 22-5-1926, parcelled out the entire estate amongst her three daughters. Charubala died later in Bhadra, 1343 B.S. The plaintiffs claim to be the reversioners to the estate of Satyacharan on Charubala's death. The contesting defendant Is the son of Haridasi the purchaser of the disputed property in execution of a mortgage decree against Mrinalini. The plaintiffs as reversioners prayed khas possession. The contesting defendant raised a plea which formed the subject-matter of issue No. 7, namely, whether the defendant is entitled to compensation for repairs effected by the defendant after the auction-purchase.

(2.) Both the courts below have answered issue No. 7 in favour of the contesting defendant and have directed that the plaintiffs do get possession on payment of a compensation of Rs. 300/- to the contesting defendant (defendant No. 1).

(3.) It is the propriety of this decision which is the subject-matter of this appeal. In order to dispose of this contention it is necessary to state the material findings of fact reached by the Courts below. The auction-purchase took place on 20-2-1932. It is not clearly found when the alleged repairs were effected. The finding merely is that the defendant effected repairs so as to make the rooms fit for use and that the repairs were spread over a period of 2 to 3 years. The Courts below have assessed the amount of repairs at a lump sum of Rs. 300/-. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal further found that the auction-purchaser (Haridassi) apparently auction-purchased, the pro- perty in the bona fide belief that Mrinalini was the full owner and that she derived an absolute title by the purchase and that after the auction-purchase, Haridassi effected substantial repairs in the property and the plaintiffs are equitably bound to pay compensation to the defendant before they get khas possession.