RAGHUNATH RAM Vs. LACHMAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit; has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiffs in t.heir plaint set forth that the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family and that they borrowed a sum of money under the simple mortgage deed, dated 10 November 1924 from the plaintiffs, the mortgagors being Melhu Bai and Lachman Bai and the mortgagee being Kolaram. Subsequently on 10 June 1930 a sum of Rs. 1,000 was due from the defendants on account of the principal and interest under this mortgage-deed, and a sale deed was executed by the defendants on 10 June 1930 in favour of plaintiff No. 8, a member of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs. The sale deed was in lieu of the amount of Rs. 1,000. The sale deed purported to transfer 1.14 acres of zamindari property of the defendants. On the same date there was a deed of relinquishment executed by the defendants of their sir rights in the sir which appertained to the 1.14 acres of zamindari land. Subsequently the defendants did not give actual possession of the plots and the plaintiffs accordingly brought a suit asking for the following reliefs : (a) that the plaintiffs should receive actual possession of the plots with damages; (b) that if actual possession and damages are not granted then a decree undar Order 34, Rule 4, Civil P.C., should be passed on the original simple mortgage of 10 November 1924 with mesne profits.

(2.) The suit was resisted on the ground that actual proprietary possession of the zamindari share sold had been given to the plaintiff's and that the defendants were in possession as ex-proprietary tenants, and that the plaintiffs had no right to obtain possession of the actual plots. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. In this Court an issue was framed and remitted to the Court below as follows: Whether the sale deed and the relinquishment form part of one agreement within the meaning of Section 2(e), Contract Act.?

(3.) The finding of the lower appellate Court is in the affirmative. The question was than argued as to how the finding would affect the suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was argued that a relinquishment of ex-proprietary rights made as one agreement with the sale deed of zamindari property is contrary to law, that is Section 15, Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926, and therefore that as this is contrary to law the object of the agreement was not lawful and the sale deed and the deed of relinquishment were inoperative under Section 23, Contract Act. Beferenee is also made by learned Counsel to Section 24, Contract Act, which provides: If any part of a aingla consideration for ona or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object is unlawful, the agreement is void.