KANDHAIYA SINGH Vs. KUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for determination in this appeal is one of law, namely, whether the present suit is barred" as res judicata on account of a previous judgment.

(2.) The facts involved in the point of law-are briefly these: The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance, brought a. suit in the year 1917 against the defendant-appellant for the setting aside, inter alia, of a sale-deed, executed by her on the 13 of April, 1914, in favour of the-appellant. She said that the sale-deed was a fictitious one, that no title was meant to pass by it, that although it was on the face of it, for the sum of Rs. 2,000, she got no portion of the consideration, money, that her statement before the Sub-Registrar that she had received a consideration of Ra. 1,600 was false and that the sum of Rs. 400 that was actually handed over to her before the Sub Registrar, had been returned by her after the registration of the document was over. On these allegations, she sought cancellation of the sale-deed and also recovery of possession of the house.

(3.) The Court of first instance held that the sale was obtained in circumstances under which it was open to her to avoid it. But it also held that she had received a portion of the consideration money. A decree was accordingly made in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of" the house on condition of payment of a certain amount of money. The plaintiff appealed and she contested the finding; that she had to pay anything at all. The learned District Judge, who heard the appeal, reduced the amount payable; by her but otherwise upheld the decree. By the final decree that was passed in the case, the plaintiff was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 600 within a certain period of time, and it was further ordered that in case of default of payment, the suit should stand dismissed. The plaintiff failed to pay the sum of Rs. 600 and the result was that her suit for recovery of possession stood dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for the recovery of Rs. 1,400 being the balance of the purchase money, by the sale of the property sold. She evidently wanted to enforce what is known as vendor's lien over the property.