DARBARI LAL Vs. MTPARBATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants-appellants Darbari Lal and Shankar Lal held certain mortgages from Raghunath Singh. On foot of those mortgages they obtained decrees against Mt. Parbati, the widow of Raghunath Singh. Raghunath Singh had two brothers, Hulas Singh and Srikishun Singh. The plaintiffs-respondents are the descendants of Hulas Singh and Srikishun Singh. Their allegation was that Raghunath Singh, Hulas Singh and Srikishun Singh formed members of a joint Hindu family, that the property mortgaged by Raghunath Singh was the joint family property of the entire family, and that Raghunath Singh had no right to mortgage any portion of the same without any lawful necessity. It was further alleged that the decrees obtained on the basis of those mortgages were not binding on the plaintiffs because they were not made parties to the decrees or to the suits in which those decrees were passed. In fact they asserted that the name of Mt. Parbati, the widow of Raghunath Singh, was entered in the revenue papers for her consolation after the death of Raghunath Singh, and that she was only entitled to maintenance and was not in possession of any portion of the property mortgaged by her husband.

(2.) The defendants, Darbari Lal and Shankar Lal, denied that Raghunath Singh was living jointly with Hulas Singh and Srikishun Singh or their descendants. They did not suggest that the mortgages in question had been made by Raghunath Singh for legal necessity, but they contend that Mt. Parbati was in possession of the property of Raghunath Singh as his widow, and that the decrees obtained against her where valid and enforceable.

(3.) The Court below, relying on the general presumption that a Hindu family is joint, and also on certain oral and other evidence adduced in the case, came to the conclusion that Raghunath Singh was living jointly with Hulas Singh and Srikishun Singh and their descendants on the dates of the mortgages in question, and that the decrees obtained by the defendants-appellants against Mt, Parbati were not binding on the plaintiffs. It further held that the defendants could not have been ignorant of the real position of the family when they took the mortgages from Raghunath Singh in respect of what was, according to its finding, joint family property, and that they were similarly aware of the real position when they chose to file suits and obtain decree against Mt. Parbati alone, which could not be treated as binding on the plaintiffs.