LAWS(PVC)-1943-7-64

RAHMAT ILAHI Vs. MOHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN

Decided On July 28, 1943
RAHMAT ILAHI Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Lahore, sitting as a Court of Second Appeal, dated April 25, 1939, allowing an appeal from a judgment of August 4, 1936, of a District Judge, which affirmed the decision of a Subordinate Judge of August 2, 1935, dismissing a suit of Mst. Umrao Begum (whom it will be convenient to call the plaintiff) who died on June 25, 1938, pending the appeal to the High Court, against Sheikh Rahmat Ilahi (whom it will be convenient to call the defendant). Two questions arise for their Lordships determination, first, whether it was competent to the High Court to entertain the appeal from the District Judge, and, second, whether, assuming the appeal to be competent, the High Court were right in reversing the decision of the District Judge and holding, as they did, that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed by her in the suit.

(2.) In a previous suit the defendant had obtained on March 30, 1933, a decree for Rs. 30,000 and interest against the plaintiff for money alleged to be due on a money bond. On August 28, 1933, the present suit was begun by the plaintiff against the defendant with a view to setting aside the decree for Rs. 30,000. The case alleged by the plaintiff in her petition of plaint as finally amended and dated December 20, 1933, may be summarized as follows : It was said that one Chaudhri Mohammed Din with the help of one Mahbub Ilahi had fraudulently secured the plaintiff's signature on the bond above referred to while she lay ill, thus fixing on her a liability to the defendant, although she had never seen him nor raised any loan from him ; that three months later the same two persons without the plaintiff's knowledge purchased a stamp paper in the name of the plaintiff, and a fictitious dispute having been set up, an agreement referring the same to arbitration was written on the paper and a bogus arbitrator was appointed; that a suit was instituted by the defendant for a decree enforcing the arbitrator's award ; that on March 30, 1933, a decree against her for Rs. 30,000 was passed, having been obtained by a fraudulent representation that she accepted the award and its terms; that the award and the decree were null and void.

(3.) In the Court of the Subordinate Judge the issue was formulated as follows : Was the decree in dispute obtained by fraud and collusion or undue influence and is therefore void or illegal.