NEHAL SINGH Vs. JAGANNATH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts involved in this appeal are these: The plaintiff's father purchased the shares of the descendants of one Amjad in a hamlet appertaining to khewat No. 1 in a certain mahal described in paragraph 1 of the plaint at an auction sale held on the 16 of July, 1910. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on the last day of limitation against the appellant who was a co-sharer in the mahal. The statement in the plaint was that the defendant took possession of the purva without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff stated that he was in possession and was dispossessed, but did not state when he got possession and when he was dispossessed.

(2.) The appellant's defence was mainly the following: The auction sale was held through an amin and this was in contravention of Section 193, Clause (1) of the Tenancy Act and the sale did not pass any title to the plaintiff ; (2) the suit is barred by time; (3) the share purchased by the plaintiff is less than what is claimed; and (4)at the time of sale some of the judgment-debtors were minors and their certificated guardian was not made their guardian of the suit, and that therefore the sale was invalid.

(3.) The Court of firnt instance dismissed the suit. But the lower Appellate Court gave a decree without, however, clearly specifying to what extent the plaintiff's suit stood decreed.