HIRAJI Vs. VISHNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued to recover posssesion of the suit lands alleging they belonged to their great grandfather Kondu. Kondu left two sons Moru and Chandra. There was a separation whereby plaintiffs father Guna Moru got a half share, the other half going to the descendants of Chandra now represented by the defendants.

(2.) The plaint states that in 1885 plaintiffs father gave his share to Haridas Ramdas by passing a mortgage-deed in the form of a sale for Rs. 1,000. Possession remained with plaintiffs father. Defendant's father also gave his share to Haridas on the same condition, retaining possession. In 1886, plaintiffs father having died, their mother, defendant and Haridas came to an arrangement by which it was found that the amount due by both branches was Rs. 5,000 and the defendants passed instalment-bond for that amount for the plaintiffs and themselves, keeping all the land in their possession and giving a portion of C.S. No. 24 and the whole of C.S. No. 17 to the plaintiffs mother for the maintenance. In 1908-09 the defendants had liquidated the debt. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed back from the defendants the properties originally mortgaged by their father to Haridas.

(3.) The defendants pleaded that the family properties were partitioned between Moru and Chandra. Guna sold his lands to Haridas by a sale-deed of the 12th September 1885. The lands, except C.S. No. 17, were purchased orally by defendant No. 1 and the father of defendants NOS. 2 to 5 in 1886 from Haridas. An instalment-bond in respect of the properties so purchased was given to Haridas and the amount due under the bond had been paid. Survey No. 17 was not purchased from Haridas by the defendants. A portion of Section No. 24 was sold by Krishna Chandra and was recently purchased by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs having recently got possession of the deed of 1885 had brought a false suit against the defendants. 3. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the effect that an arrangement had been arrived at between their mother and the defendants whereby defendant mortgaged the whole property to Haridas, so that when that debt was paid off, defendants being in possession all along, the plaintiffs were entitled to get back their property.