COLLECTOR OF GHAZIPUR Vs. BALBHADDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit by respondents Nos 1 and 2 upon three mortgage-deeds executed in their favour, or in favour of their father, in March 1888, and August 1892, by Ram Saran Singh, Lutawan Singh, Bisheshar Singh and Meghu Singh. The following pedigree shows the relationship between the mortgagors and other persons who will be referred to in this judgment:

(2.) The defendants, described as defendant first party in the Court below, are the living descendants of Nanku Singh and Ram Saran Singh. The defendants, second party, are lessees whose exact position need not be explained. The defendant, third party, is the Collector of Ghazipur, representing the estate of Dulhin Ram Kuar, who purchased the mortgaged property in December 1902, from Ram Saran Singh and his descendants and from the descendants of Nanku Singh. The defence of the Collector of Ghazipur was that the property belonged to Nanku Singh and Ram Phal Singh; that Nanku s widow, as guardian of her children, sold their share in the property in December 1850, to Ram Phal Singh; that Ram Phal Singh died without issue, leaving his widow, Babisa Kuar, who died in September 1901; that the Ram Saran Singh shown in the pedigree was not the son of Ram Phal, nephew of Nanku, but was the son of a Ram Phal whose father s name was Ghore Patare Rai; that during the life-time of Babisa Kuar, the descendants of Nanku, who were her husband s reversionary heirs, had no lights in the property, therefore, the mortgages in suit were invalid; and lastly that Dulhin Ram Kuar purchased the property from the persons who became entitled to the property on the death of Babisa Kuar, whether under a Will said to have been executed by her or as the reversionary heirs of her husband.

(3.) It appears that Babisa Kuar obtained mutation of names in her favour upon the death of her husband. But in 1884, Ram Saran and the sons of Nanku got their names entered in the record. Babisa Kuar, in May 1894, obtained a decree against them declaring that they had no title. The plaintiffs alleged that the proceedings of 1894 were collusive. The Subordinate Judge has found that those proceedings were collusive; that Ram Saran was the son of Ram Phal, nephew of Nanku, and that the mortgages in suit are binding on the property in the hands of the Collector.