BHAIRAV LAL Vs. RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by one of the defendants, namely, Bhairavlal, against the judgement and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Baran, dated the 2nd February, 1953, affirming the decree of the Munsif Mangrol, dated the 23rd of April, 1952.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Ramgopal filed a suit for a declaration that the sale of two shops effected by defendant-respondent No. 2 Smt. Pushpa Bai in favour of the appellant and third respondent Nathulal was invalid and ineffective against him. It was stated by the plaintiff that the two shops in dispute which were situated in village Mangrol belonged to Ram Keshan, father-in-law of defendant respondent No. 2, Pushpa Bai. THEse shops were mortgaged by Ram Kishan with one Laxmanji, ancestor of defendant-appellant Bhairav Lal and defendant-respondent Nathu Lal. Defendant-respondent Pushpa Bai's husband Madanlal filed a suit for the redemption of the said two shops in the court of Munsif Mangrol. During the course of the trial of the said case Madanlal died leaving behind him his widow Mst. Pushpa Bai. Her name was brought on the record of that case as plaintiff. It was further stated that in that case 22nd February, 1950 was fixed for hearing, but even before that date Mst. Pushpa Bai on the one hand and Bhairavlal and Nathulal on the other came to a compromise whereby Mst. Pushpa Bai sold the equity of redemption in favour of the mortgagees and filed a deed of compromise in the court. THEreafter, the suit for redemption was dismissed in terms of the compromise. THE plaintiff's case was that he was the next reversioner of Madanlal's property, that Mst. Pushpa Bai had inherited only a limited estate from her husband, that the alienation made by her was collusive and therefore it was prayed that a declaratory decree be given in his favour to the effect that the sale made by Mst. Pushpabai in favour of Bhairavlal and Nathulal was invalid and ineffective against him. THE defendants contested the suit on several grounds which led the trial court to frame 5 issues. It is not necessary to set out all of them here, because, as it will be shown presently, the appeal has been argued on one point only. It would suffice to say that the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the next reversioner, that the sale of the property by Mst. Pushpa was not made for legal necessity and that it was therefore invalid and ineffective as against the plaintiff Aggrieved by this decree, the defendant filed an appeal which was heard by the learned Civil Judge, Baran. THE appellate court however dismissed the appeal and hence he has come to this Court.