JADDO KUAR Vs. SHEO SHANKER RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following table will help to elucidate the statement of facts:

(2.) Bhuabal Bhagat and his descendants, who were joint in every respect, carried on an ancestral business in srji, sugar, and groceries under the style of Bhuabal Bhagat Bhoj Ram. They also did a litlle money lending and owned some zamindari property. After the death of Bhuabal Bhagat and five of his sons the management of the family business and properly came into the hands of Hira Ram and Dhondhi Ram. On July 4th, 1894, the two last named advanced money belonging to the family upon a mortgage of some villages, already mortgaged to the appellant, and on July 26th, 1894, they purchased with family funds another village which also had been previously mortgaged to the appellant. In 1895, the appellant sued upon her mortgages and obtained two decrees, one for sale and the other for foreclosure Both decrees were made absolute, and in execution of the decree for sale the appellant purchased the property covered by that decree. Hira Ram and Dhondhi Ram were parties to the suits brought by the appellant, but the plaintiffs were not made parties. In the present suit they claimed a decree for redemption of all the property mortgaged to the appellant on the ground that they ought to have been made parties to the suits for sale and foreclosure and not having been made parties are not bound by the decrees which were passed. The Court below has given them a decree for redemption of so much of the property as is covered by the mortgage-deed of July 4th, 1894, and the sale-deed of July 26th, 1894. Jaddo Kuar has appealed on the ground that the entire suit should have been dismissed. The plaintiffs have filed cross-objections on the question of costs.

(3.) The Court below has found, and the finding has not been challenged before us, that Hira Ram and Dhondhi Ram were the managers of the family property and business, that when the appellant brought her suits she was not aware of the existence of the plaintiffs, that Hira Ram and Dhondhi Ram defended the suits by authority of the adult; members of the family who were aware of what was being done in them as all expenses incurred were entered in the family accounts, and that the plaintiff Bishnath Ram had not been born when the appellant brought her suits. To this finding it may be added that the plaintiffs, Mathura Ram, Dwarka Ram and Sheo Prasad Ram, were minors when those suits were brought.