PATESHWARI PARSAD PAL Vs. JAI KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the appellant Pateshwari Parsad Pal, a minor, in the following circumstances:

(2.) One Mahadeo Parsad Pal had three brothers Bankay, Harihar and Dan Bahadur. Dan Bahadur, who was a stepbrother of Mahadeo Parsad Pal, succeeded to a taluka property, which originally belonged to his father-in-law under a will. Dan Bahadur died sometime in 1908. His widow was Mt. Sukhpal Kunwar and his daughter was Mt. Balraj Kunwar, and Mt. Balraj Kunwar a son was Adya Bakhsh, Mahadeo Parsad Pal, being the eldest of the brothers, believed that ho had a substantial claim to the property of Dan Bahadur. The taluka was known as that of Dandikachh. The litigation for the taluka property was a costly affair, and Mahadeo Parsad Pal had not got money. He and his brothers Harihar and Bankey raised some money and fought out a case in the mutation department with Adya Bakhsh, who claimed the property by virtage of a will from his maternal grandfather, Dan Bahadur. In the mutation department Adya Bakhsh was successful, and then Mahadeo Parsad Pal thought of instituting a suit in the civil Court at Partabgarh. To raise money for the litigation he executed the bond of 18 March 1911 in favour of the respondent Jai Karan's father Razawand Singh. By this document, Mahadeo Parsad Pal mortgaged five properties in the District, of Basti, which were a part of his ancestral property, and one village of the taluka property to which he was laying claim. At the date of the mortgage Mahadeo Parsad Pal's son, Raj Bahadur, was alive and was an adult. Ha was not made a party to the mortgage.

(3.) A suit was actually filed by Mahadeo Parsad Pal on 17 June 1912. Apparently he required more money, and one Seth Kandhaiya Lal of Jubbulpore advanced some money as a transferee of a part of the taluka property, and he was impleaded in the suit as a co-plaintiff with Mahadeo Parsad, by virtue of an order dated 15 October 1913,