BABAMIYA DAWOODMIYA MASANKATTI Vs. ABDUL KARIM MAHAMADMIYA MULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent on a certificate from the decision of Mr. Justice Barlee, who decided the second appeal. The facts underlying the litigation were as follows:

(2.) A decree was obtained by two persons, Babamiya walad Dawoodmiya and Abdul Khavdin tcalad Amirsaheb against Abdul Karim walad Mahainadmiya. It was a consent decree and concerned a piece of land of which the decree holders were given a share by its terms. The decree was passed in 1923. In 1925 one of the decree-holders, Babamiya, made an application to have the decree executed. In the course of that application Babamiya stated: The plaintiff No. 2 has relinquished his right over the property in question when the suit was going on. Therefore, the first plaintiff alone has given this darkhast.

(3.) The order made on the application was: Applicant writes that plaintiff No. 2 has relinquished his rights over the property in suit. He should put in papers in support of that statement. 3. Some months after, a purshis was put in by plaintiff No. 2, to the following effect: The decree in the above case has been passed in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. I have no objection if plaintiff No. 1 takes possession of the lands belonging (awarded; to me. The plaintiff No. 1, should prosecute the execution proceeding of this darkhast, and the plaintiff No. 1 should take possession of the property awarded to me and plaintiff No. 1. And I have no objection if the plaintiff No, 1 recovers the amount of costs recoverable therein. This is the zpurshis .