HANUMAN PRASAD THAKUR Vs. JADUNANDAN THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain land that was sold in execution of a decree against one Harnandan Thakur in May 1900. It was purchased ostensibly by the defendant, Jadu Nandan Thakur. The plaintiff is the heir of one Rajbati, the sister of Jadunandan, and his case is that Jadunandan, purchased the property with Rajbati s money and on her behalf, and that she remained in possession till her death in January 1906, since when the defendants are in possession. The 2nd defendant is said to have purchased a portion of the property from Jadurandan in June 1904, in full knowledge that Jadunandan was merely a farzidar. The defence isthat Jadunandan bought the property himself.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit, holding that it is barred by Section 66 of the Code, and also that Jadunandan was the real purchaser. The plaintiff appeals.

(3.) Against Shia Thakur, the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff has, in my opinion, no case whatever. There is no evidence worth a moment s consideration that Shia had any reason to think that Jadunandan was not the real purchaser. Bhaya Singh, an important witness for the plaintiff, admits that Shia Thakur has been in possession since his purchase, which was 1 1/2 years before Rajbati s death. learned Counsel contended that Rajbati, being a pardanashin, could not be estopped from pleading that the ostensible owner was not the true owner, unless it was shown that everything had been explained to her. This seems to me an untenable contention. To accept it would be equivalent to holding that, though a purchaser is not bound to inquire whether his vendor is the benamidar for another man, he is bound to ascertain whether or not lie is the benamidar of a woman. This is evidently unreasonable.