SHEODHYAN SINGH Vs. SANICHARA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of defendants 1 to 8, who are described as defendants 1st party in the suit, out of which the present appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 24-9-47 of Mr. S. Saghir Hussein 1st Additional Subordinate Judge at Arrah, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) The plaintiffs' suit was for a declaration that the properties mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint belonged to them, and the defendants first party, who are the appellants before this Court, had got no title thereto, and as such the possession and occupation of defendants first party were wrongful.

(3.) The plaintiffs' case was that defendant 1 on 14-7-20 executed a mortgage bond in favour of the defendant 9. On the basis of this mortgage bond the defendants 2nd party, who are members of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family with defendant 9 as its karta, obtained in 7-8-35 a final mortgage decree against defendants first party, who also form a joint Mitakshara Hindu family with defendant 1 as its karta, and in execution of that decree purchased the properties mortgaged to them on 10-2-36, and got delivery of possession, over the same through Court on 20-6-36, and thereafter the defendants 2nd party sold the lands in suit, which are 8.90 acres of raiyati lands, under a registered sale deed dated 16-6-43 executed by defendants 9 and 10 in favour of the. plaintiffs, and thereafter they came in possession of the same, but subsequently the defendants first party began to create trouble against the plaintiffs., which led to a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C., which was decided on 9-1-44 in favour of the plaintiffs, and another, proceeding under Section 107, Criminal P.C., in which the defendants first party were bound over, and thereafter in November 1945 the defendants first party dispossessed the plaintiffs from the lands mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint. The plaintiffs therefore, brought the present suit on 9-7-46 or a declaration of title and possession, and also for recovery of Rs. 2,534-8-0 as past mesne profits and Rs. 400 as value of the sugar-cane alleged to have been looted by the defendants first party on 5-4-45, which led to their prosecution under Sections 143 and 379, I.P.C., in which they were ultimately acquitted. The plaintiffs further prayed for future mesne profits till the date of recovery of possession.