LAL SAHAB RAI Vs. MAHARAJA RADHA PARSHAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in which these consolidated appeals are taken was instituted by Lal Sahab Rai and others, the Respondents, before the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur, in March, 1882, for the purpose of obtaining relief against the attachment and sale, at the instance of the Maharaja Radha Pershad Singh, the Appellant, of certain shares of immovable estate in taluk Narhi and elsewhere, in satisfaction of a judgment debt alleged to be due from their ancestor, Jhanguri Rai. The Respondents are the six sons of Jaipargash, the only son of Jhanguri, who was one of the five sons of Achraj Rai, a pattidar of Narhi; and the shares sold in execution by the Appellant were the ancestral property of the Respondents, being one-fifth of the interest which belonged to their great-grandfather, Achraj Rai.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the relative position of the litigants and the merits of the controversy raised by these appeals, it is necessary to revert to the legal proceedings in which the decrees were obtained which formed the warrant for the attachment and sale against which relief is sought.

(3.) THE decree, which is dated the 14th of April, 1856, assigned the disputed land to the Maharaja, and fixed its boundaries; and also found that he was "entitled to mesne profits from the date of the Deputy Collector's order until he recovers possession." An appeal was taken by some of the Defendants to the Sudder Court, who, on the 29th of November, 1859, varied the boundaries fixed by the Subordinate Judge favourably to the Defendants, and directed "that mesne profits be adjusted accordingly." The Maharaja presented a petition for review, upon which the Sudder Court, on the 7th of April, 1860, modified its previous decision with respect to boundaries, in his favour. An appeal was then taken by the Defendants to this Board, which was dismissed on the 31st of March, 1870, for want of prosecution. It is unnecessary to notice further these proceedings by way of appeal, because the decrees pronounced in them had reference merely to the extent of the land which the Maharaja was entitled to recover, and did not disturb the general finding of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur in regard to mesne profits.