ANANTIA Vs. RAMLAGAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the preliminary order dated 14-8-1951 passed by Mr. Ajitnath Sarkar, Munsif, 2nd Court, Patna holding that court-fee paid is insufficient and that it should have been paid as provided under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and not on the bond amount as claimed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit instituted by the plaintiff is one for the redemption of the mortgage created by him in favour of defendant 1 by a registered document. It bears title suit No. 134 of 1949/51 and is at present pending for disposal in the Court of the learned Munsif. The plaint discloses that there are five sets of defendants in this case of whom defendants 1 to 10 are defendants first party, who are either original mortgagees or their successors. The plaintiff is the widow of one Ramgobind Singh. The ancestor of Ramgobind was one Dularchand Singh. The family of Dular Chand is at present represented by two branches which are separate. One branch is represented by the family of Ramgobind Singh and the other by the family of Sheogobind Singh, defendant 26 and Mt. Bhagwati Kuer, defendant 25. The lands owned by the family were recorded in the survey record of rights under khata Nos. 114 and 115 of tauzi No. 220. As a result of partition in the family half of the land in each of the khatas came to Ramgobind and after him to his widow and the remaining half went to the share of Sheonarayan Singh and Mt. Ehagwati Kuer. By a document dated 19-2-1924, the plaintiff gave her half share in plots Nos. 920, 929 and 970 of khata No. 114 in usufructuary mortgage, in lieu of Rs. 1000/- to one Ramdhani Singh, the father of the defendants 3 to 7 and Ramlagan Singh defendant 1. The period of mortgage was from 1331 to 1338 Fs. Under the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee was to pay rent of the mortgaged land. By another registered deed dated 9-7-1926, the plaintiff gave her 2 bighas 10 kathas of land under plot No. 852 of khata No. 114 to the family of defendant first party in lieu of Rs. 900/-. The period for the mortgage was from 1334 to 1338 Ps. and under this mortgage too the mortgagee was to pay the rent of the mortgaged land. By a third document dated 9-7-1926, the plaintiff gave another 2 bighas of land in plot No. 980 of khata No. 114 again to the defendants first party. The period of this mortgage was from 1334 to 1338 Ps. and as in the case of other mortgages the mortgagees were to pay rent of the mortgaged land. By a fourth registered document dated 9-7-1926, another 2 bighas of land in plot No. 980 khata No. 114 was given in a usufructuary mortgage by the plaintiff to the defendant first party in lieu of Rs. 600/-. The period of the mortgage was from 1334 to 1338 Ps. and under this document as well the rent was to be paid by the mortgagees. The remaining land of the plaintiff, which was still left without burden, was given in rehan to the families of the defendants 1st to 4th parties by the plaintiff and under the terms of that rehan also the mortgagee were to pay the rent of the lands in rehan. By a separate document the defendant 25 and the mother of defendant 26 also gave their entire land under khata 114 in usufructuary mortgages to the defendants 1st to 4th parties. Under that document as well the rent was to be paid by the mortgagees. The defendants 25 and 26, the executants of the last mortgage, have been impleaded as the defendants 5th party in this suit.

(3.) On the 30th of Jaith 1356 Fs. corresponding to 10-6-1949 the plaintiff went to the defendants first party in order to redeem the rehan deed dated 19-2-1924 and offered to pay the rehan money to them. The defendant 1st party at first tried to put them off but ultimately they disclosed to the plaintiff on. 5-8-1949 that the entire rehan land covered by the rehan deeds executed by the plaintiff and also the one executed by defendant 25 the mother of defendant 26 were sold in execution of a decree for rent and were purchased by the defendant 1st party in farzi name of their relation and by the defendants 2nd, 3rd and 4th parties. It is also alleged in the plaint that after the purchase of the land in the execution sale the auction purchasers divided it amongst themselves and the defendants refused to redeem the rehan deed dated 19-2-1924. On enquiry, as is stated in the plaint, the plaintiff came to know that as a matter of fact the defendants 1st to 4th parties dishonestly and fraudulently in collusion and conspiracy with each other did not pay the rent to the landlords as stipulated in the mortgage bonds and fraudulently, dishonestly and malafidely in collusion with the landlords and in conspiracy with one another got a rent suit filed by the landlords in respect of the entire holding in which summonses were surreptitiously and fraudulently served and ultimately a fraudulent and collusive decree was obtained and the entire land was got sold 'bala bala' without any service of notices on the parties.