JAIRAJ SINGH Vs. MUSTAFAI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by Jairaj Singh plaintiff 1 himself and his minor brother Ramdeo Singh plaintiff 2. These two plaintiffs are shown by the pedigree in the plaint at p. 7 of the typed book as being two of the five sons of Madho Singh and as members of a family which had several branches collateral with Madho Singh. The plaintiffs and other branches of the family owned certain property in four villages in Jaunpur District and the share of the family of Madho Singh in those villages was one-fifth. The claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit is that they should be placed in possession of the whole one-fifth share of the family of Madho Singh in these villages and that a deed of mortgage dated 12 June 1919 executed by certain members of the family in favour of defendant 1 should be declared invalid.

(2.) The history of the property in regard to this family is as follows:

(3.) On 17 August 1915 there was a mortgage by conditional sale for Rs. 8,628 executed by Madho Singh, father of; the plaintiffs, and other collateral members of his family. On 30 August 1916 another mortgage for Rs. 750 was executed also by Madho Singh and others. These mortgages were in favour of defendant 1 Mt. Mustafai Begam. Defendant 1 brought a suit for foreclosure on these mortgages which was Suit No. 168 of 1919 instituted on 11 December 1919. In that suit plaintiff 1 Jairaj Singh remained ex parte. Other members of the family who were defendants came to terms of compromise with Mt. Mustafai Begam and an application was made on behalf of Ram Deo Singh minor and other minors by one Ram Karan Singh as guardian asking permission of the Court to compromise on certain terms.. This application is shown on p. 15 of the supplemental typed book. The application sets forth that the suit for fore closure had been brought on the basis of a valid bond with consideration and no-good and proper defence could be put upon behalf of the minor defendant or any other defendants and if the matter be. not compromised and a decree be passed,, the property would be lost for ever and the defendants had no means to pay up the amount of the decree within the time which would be fixed by the Court in a decree for foreclosure: Therefore the guardian of the defendants in the capacity of guardian along with other defendants executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff on 12 June 1919 and saved the property from the danger of being foreclosed, for ten years, and the defendants got a -sufficient time to pay up the amount. This compromise has been entered; into for the benefit of the minors.