NARAIN DAS Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the arguments in this case we are of opinion that the decree of the Court below must be reversed and the suit must be sent back for disposal on the merits. The case is a somewhat peculiar one. The plaintiff Lala Narain Das alias Ram Dayal brought this suit originally against Ram Chander, son of Kanhaiya Lal praying for his ejectment from a certain shop situated in Mandavi Ghalla in the city of Meerut.

(2.) The title which the plaintiff asserted to this shop was that it had bean bought by his own brother from a Receiver who had been appointed by the Court in a partnership. The plaintiff asserted that his brother, who is also called Ram Chander, had purchased this property really on his behalf, being at that time the guardian of the plaintiff who was then a minor. Ram Chander, son of Kanhaiya Lal joined issue regarding this question of title and stated that the title to the shop was not in the plaintiff but was in him. He stated that the purchase which had been made by Ram Chander, son of Khem Chand (that is to say the brother of the plaintiff) was a purchase made on his, defendant 1's behalf, and he, therefore, insisted that Ram Chander, son of Khem Chand should be made a party to the suit. This was done and the case then proceeded.

(3.) It appears that Ram Chander, defendant 2, the brother of the plaintiff, purchased this shop on 13 September 1914 in the course of a sale made by a Receiver under the directions of the Court. The suit in which this Receiver was appointed was Suit No. 485 of 1911. We have at p. 11 of our record the report of the Receiver which was dated 15 September 1914, and which shows that he held an auction of certain shops on 13 September 1914 and that shop No. 1 was sold to Ram Chander, son of Khem Chand. The Receiver asked the Court to confirm the sale. Then we find that by a proceeding, dated 17 December 1914, the Court confirmed the sale in favour of the purchaser Ram Chander, son of Khem Chand. A copy of this order is at p. 12 of our record and it purports to be an order-under Order 21, Rule 92(1), Civil P.C. Later on the certificate as provided by O, 21, Rule 94 was granted to Ram Chander, son of Khem Chand.