(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the learned subordinate Judge of Gaya dismissing their claim arising under a security bond. The suit was brought to recover Rs. 13,500 by the sale of two villages, Rahio and Barai, mortgaged to the plaintiffs under a security bond dated 23 September 1920. The plaintiffs were the sons of one Brahmadeo Singh in whose favour the bond was executed, and defendant 1 was the executant thereof. Defendants 2 to 4, it was said, constituted a pint Hindu family with defendant 1 as karta thereof, and it was alleged that they were bound by the terms of the bond by reason of the fact that defendant 1 had executed the same in his capacity as karta of the family. Defendants 5 to 10 were subsequent mortgagees of village Rahio and were im-pleaded as such. The other defendants were merely pro forma.
(2.) The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows: On 24 January 1914, the plaintiffs father Brahmadeo Singh and two other persons, namely Amar Singh and Gaya Singh, obtained a mukarrari lease of two villages, Lakhawar Khas and Lakhawar Makhloot Faridpur alias Malpur, Lakhawar from Ram Bhuvaneshwari Kuar of Tikari. The plaintiffs father Brahmadeo Singh and Amar Singh had each four annas in this mukarrari lease, whilst Gaya had the remaining eight annas. Shortly after this mukarrari had been granted, defendant 14, the Raja of Tamkuhi, claimed that he was entitled to the villages in question by virtue of an earlier mukarrari said to have been executed in his favour by the Rani's predecessor in- title. The Raja of Tamkuhi, it is said, dispossessed the later mukarraridars, and Brahmadeo Singh, Amar Singh and Gaya Singh brought a suit against the Raja of Tamkuhi claiming a declaration that they were mukarraridars of the villages in question and possession of the same.
(3.) On 25 April 1915, the suit was decreed in the Court of the subordinate Judge, and on 25 June 1919, an appeal by the Raja of Tamkuhi to this Court was dismissed. Brahmadeo Singh, Gaya Singh and Amar Singh proceeded to execute the decree of this Court and obtained delivery of possession of the two villages. The possession given was symbolical as it -was impossible to give the parties actual possession as they were only mukarraridars entitled to rents from the tenants of the villages. Costs were also recovered from the Raja, and eventually a sum was deposited in Court of which the share of the plaintiff's father was Rs. 1018 or thereabouts. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the Raja of Tamkuhi obtained leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and during the pendency of that appeal the plaintiffs father on 23 September 1923, sold his four annas share in the mukarrari lease together with the arrears of rent and his share of the costs deposited by the Raja to defendant 1 who, it is said, purchased as karta of his family which consisted of himself and defendants 2, 3 and 4. The consideration for this purchase was a sum of Rs. 10,000. In the sale deed, (Ex. 8), it was expressly provided that if the appeal to His Majesty in Council was decided against the vendor, the vendee would not be entitled to a refund of the purchase price.