KISHUN RAUT Vs. RAM BRICH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple point involved in this appeal is whether a third person who has dispossessed the mortgagee and has remained in possession of the mortgaged land for more than 12 years has acquired full title against the mortgagee alone or against the mortgagor also.

(2.) This question arises in the following circumstances : One Tilakhdhari Rai the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had executed a zerpeshgi deed for Rs. 100 dated 24-3-1893 in respect of the disputed lands in favour of one Parau Singh and the latter had come in possession of those lands. The plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption of the zerpeshgi alleging that defendants 1 to 9 were Parau's heirs. When he died, it is alleged, his property was inherited by Rambriksh, Rama-shray and Jairam, and these three persons were alleged to have divided the property in four equal shares giving one fourth share to Nathuni Singh, though the latter was not entitled to it. In the survey record of rights three persons, Rambriksh, Ramashray and Rarncharitar were recorded as raiyats of the zerpeshgi lands although the plaintiffs it was alleged were in possession as mortgagees.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 4 who contested the suit denied these allegations of the plaintiffs. They said that they had no connection at all with Parau Singh and that the lands in dispute had been always their raiyati lands of which they had been in possession for more than sixty years.