RAM CHANDAR Vs. MUHAMMAD NUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit brought by the two minor sons of Suraj Prasad for a declaration that they are the owners of a two thirds share in the house in dispute, which was sold at auction in execution of a simple money decree against the father. It appears that Suraj Prasad executed a simple money bond on the 6 of May, 1913, in order to pay interest on a previous mortgage-deed. A. suit was brought by the obligee on the basis of the bond and a, decree was obtained against Suraj Prasad. In execution of that decree the house in question was attached and was put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder himself namely, Pahlad Das. In spite of getting a formal delivery of possession Pahlad Das was dispossessed and he had to bring a separate suit for the possession of the house, which was decreed in 1919. On the 2nd of June, 1919, Pahlad Das executed a sale-deed of the property in question in favour of Janki Pande, which sale was pre-empted by Haji Muhammad Nur, the present respondent. Haji Muhammad Nur obtained the pre-emption decree on the 27 of March, 1920, and has been in possession of the house since. The present suit was brought by the sons on the allegation that the debt, to recover which the property was sold at auction, was without any legal necessity and that in fact it was tainted with immorality.

(2.) The court of first instance found that the house was the ancestral property of the family and that the sons not having been made a party to the previous litigation, their interest in the house was not affected. It accordingly decreed the claim, exempting a two-third share of the house from the operation of the sale.

(3.) On appeal the learned District Judge, finding that the debt was not tainted with immorality, set aside the decree of the first court and dismissed the suit in toto.