MUFTI MOHAMMAD BAQAR Vs. NAMWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption two other suits for redemption by other plaintiffs having been also filed and tried along with Suit No. 289 of 1928 out of which this appeal arises. It will be necessary to state the facts with precision. Maula Koeri owned a fixed rate and occupancy tenancy. He died and his widow Mt. Jamuni executed a usufructuary mortgage on 23 October 1905, in favour of one Ramlal. On Mt. Jamuni's death there were three claimants to the property: firstly, Bishnath Koeri, who claimed to be a daughter's son of Mula Koeri; secondly, Sukhu Koeri, who claimed to be a collateral of Mula Koeri; and thirdly, the zamindars who claimed that the property had lapsed to them. None of these three claimants thought fit to endeavour directly to establish his claim to the property. Bach of them decided to secure his position, if possible, by filing a suit to redeem the mortgage. All three accordingly filed separate suits against the heirs of Ramlal, the mortgagee, those heirs being defendants 1 to 7.

(2.) The first suit to be filed in point of time was Suit No. 289 of 1928 filed by the zamindars who claimed that the property had lapsed to them. It was no doubt by way of answer to this suit that first Sukhu Koeri and then Bishnath Koeri filed similar suits for redemption, Nos. 322 of 1928 and 442 of 1928 respectively. In each suit the heirs of Ramlal were the only original defendants.

(3.) These three suits were consolidated by bringing all the parties on the record of each separate suit on to the record of both the other suits. There was one trial the evidence being taken in Suit No. 289. Judgment was delivered in Suit No. 289 and copies of the judgment were placed on the records of Suits Nos. 322 and 442, those copies of course being in effect and law judgments in those cases.