RAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. RAMDHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in an action in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain property in Sahidgunj and Kadirgunj being plot Nos. 1, 5, 68, 86, 283, 316, 321 and 328. The action undoubtedly was based on an allegation that the defendant had got possession of this property by purchasing in a so-called rent suit which was fraudulent. That, I repeat, was Undoubtedly the allegation of the plaintiff in the action and the allegation upon which he based his claim. The learned Judge in the Court below dismissed the plaintiff's case on the ground that he had not established the allegation to which I have just referred.

(2.) In those circumstances I vary much regret having to come to the conclusion at which I am about to arrive in this case having regard to the fact that the point upon which it seems to me the case must be decided, is one which was not properly investigated in the Court below, and the blame for that, in my judgment, must be laid at the door of the plaintiff. The short facts of the case which for the purposes of my judgment it is necessary to mention are that the plots in question were allotted to the plaintiff in certain partition proceedings which came to an end about 10 May 1921. The defendant third party had made some attempt it appears to have these plots included in the raiyati assets of the estate but it was ultimately decided that they were the khas lands of the cosharers and were allotted to the plaintiff.

(3.) It is important in the circumstances to note the date. The question was decided finally on 10 November 1921. It cannot be doubted for a moment that the proceedings in the partition action were binding on the plaintiff in this action and on the defendants third party. Now the defendants third party brought certain rent suits, four in number, for the years 1328 and 1329, that is to say 1921 and 1922, against certain alleged tenants. It was contended by the plaintiff in the action that these suits were fraudulent, and if the facts relating to the partition are correct it is of course obvious that the defendants third party had no right to settle these lands with tenants. In those rent actions the plaintiff-appellant was joined as a party. There appears to have been no defence and a decree for rent was ultimately made. The holdings so-called in these actions were put up for sale and purchased by the principal defendant, the respondent in this appeal.