RAMLAKHAN PANDEY Vs. TRIBENI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is also the applicant in revision, brought a suit for a declaration that a certain property consisting of a four annas share in village Bikua was not liable to be sold in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by defendants 1 and 2 against defendant 3, a Hindu widow. This lady, Mt. Jaimurat Kuer, on 5 March 1907, had purchased this four annas interest in village Bikua by a kebala (Ex. 1). In addition, this lady was also recorded together with her step mother-in-law, Mt. Jugeshwar Kuer, for an eight annas interest in the village.

(2.) On 29 April 1928, (it is wrongly given in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge as the 28 of April), Jaimurat Kuer together with Jugeshwar Kuer had executed a mortgage of an eight annas share in the village in favoiar of defendant 1. The following day, 1 May 1928, Jaimurat Kuer executed a deed of gift (Ex. 3) in respect of a four annas share expressly described as her purchased four annas share in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, who was her grand-nephew. Both these documents were registered on the same day the 1 of May 1928.

(3.) On 28 April 1936, defendant 1 together with defendant 2, to whom he had transferred a one-third interest in the mortgage, obtained a mortgage decree against Mt. Jaimurat Kuer defendant 3, and in execution of this decree attempted to sell the four annas share which purported to have been given to the present appellant under Ex. 3. After an order for sale had been passed, but before any sale had taken place, the present suit was filed.