RAMSUMRAN PRASAD Vs. SHYAM KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised on this appeal is whether the reversionary heirs of one Brij Mohan Lal can recover possession of certain property which is said to have been alienated by his widow as one of the terms of a compromise of litigation originally brought by Brij Mohan Lai and continued by his widow after his death. He had begun the suit on July 18, 1895, and died on December 22. The suit was brought to enforce two mortgage bonds. There was a claim by a prior mortgagee which eventually came up before this Board, and resulted in a decree which was generally favourable to the widow, but required her to pay into Court a considerable sum to the credit of this first mortgagee. She paid this, and then proceeded to execute a decree for recovery of what was due to her on the mortgage bonds, which was ascertained by the decree to be the sum of Rs. 1,41,959. Six of the properties were then put up for auction on June 20, 1912, the widow having leave to bid, and she bought them for the sum of Rs. 65,075. Thereupon the judgment-debtors filed a petition in objection to the sale, and the widow came to the compromise which is now impeached.

(2.) By this compromise she agreed that the sale of the six properties should be set aside, and that the judgment-debtors should be allowed to sell thorn again to certain proposed purchasers for a sum total of Rs. 61,000 to be paid over to her. It was further provided that the two other properties should be hers to sail and make what she could of them, it being estimated that she would probably obtain Rs. 5,000. The rest of the debt, Rs. 70,259, was remitted.

(3.) The reversioners, hearing of this transaction, applied for leave to intervene in the suit and oppose, but were refused, all their rights being reserved. Thereupon the present suit was instituted by them, praying that the order entering satisfaction of the judgment debts should be vacated, for a declaration of their rights and for an injunction and further or other relief. They said that the sale was fraudulent, collusive and illegal.