LAWS(PVC)-1924-12-142

RAM SARUP Vs. ARYA SAMAJ

Decided On December 05, 1924
RAM SARUP Appellant
V/S
ARYA SAMAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. The appeal under the Letters Patent is now confined to the property described as item No. 1 in the plaint which measures over 6 biswas. This property was acquired on the 19 of May, 1911 from one Chandi Prasad in the name of two persons Bishambhar Nath and Ram Saran Das. It now appears that Bishambhar Nath at that time was the Secretary and Ram Saran Das the treasurer of a society called the Arya Samaj of Dbampur. The names of these two persons were entered in the revenue papers. On the 18 of August, 1913 Bishambhar Nath, his brother, Ram Sarup, and Ram Saran Das applied to the Revenue Court for the partition of the property purchased under the sale-deed of the 19 of May, 1911. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that Dr. Baldeo Sahai, who was acting as the manager of the Arya Samaj, also filed certain objections to the partition proceedings. We may note that there were some other shares which admittedly belonged to the Arya Samaj in the mahal in which item No. 1 property stood and against those shares the entry in the column of proprietors was "the Arya Samaj under the management of Baldeo Sahai Kayastha manager". The Revenue Court ordered an imperfect partition under which separate patties were allotted to Bam Sarup, Bishambhar Nath, Ram Saran Das and the Arya Samaj under the managership of Baldeo Sahai.

(2.) The present suit had been instituted by the Arya Samaj to recover the property in patties allotted to Bishambhar Nath and Ram Saran Das, which property had been subsequently sold by them to Ram Sarup under a sale-deed dated the 13 of November, 1916.

(3.) The first Court decreed the claim and the lower appellate Court confirmed the decree. On appeal to this Court the appeal was partly allowed excluding certain items of property with which we are not now concerned, but the decree of the Court below was confirmed with respect to item No. 1.