ASHUTOSH GOSWAMI Vs. SURNOMOYI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondents, to recover possession and mesne profits of certain rent-free lands. Their case is that, at a sale in execution of a decree against defendant No. 2, the former owner of those lands, the plaintiffs father purchased the same for Rs. 3,850 on the 18 of February 1882, benami, in the name of defendant No. 3 (nothing for present purposes turns upon this); that the sale was confirmed on the 3 of June following; that the plaintiffs father having died shortly after, the plaintiffs obtained symbolical possession of those on the 15 of February 1883; that, subsequently, the defendant No. 2, and his wife the defendant No. 1 having entered into an agreement with the mother and guardian of the plaintiffs for the purchase of the lands, the plaintiffs relinquished possession in their favour, and that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 not having paid the consideration money in full, within the time stipulated, the plaintiffs became entitled, under the terms of the agreement, to recover possession of the property.

(2.) The defendant No. 1, who alone contested the suit, says, on the other hand, that the plaintiffs never had possession of the property in dispute, that their suit is barred by limitation; that the answering defendant never entered into any agreement with the plaintiffs mother for the purchase of the property, and that the land in dispute was purchased on the 6 of February 1882, at a sale for arrears of road cess by Umesh Chunder Chattopadhya, a pleader, from whom the answering defendant purchased the same out of her stridhan.

(3.) The first Court, whilst finding in favour of the auction purchase set up by the plaintiffs, held that their suit was barred by limitation, and, as prior to their purchase, the property had been purchased on the 6 February 1882, at a sale for arrears of road cess by Umesh Chunder Chattopadhya, who subsequently sold it to defendant No. 1--it also found that the agreement set up by the plaintiffs was not binding on defendant No. 1.