SAH MUKHUN LALL PANDAY Vs. SAH KOONDUN LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents in this appeal were' Plaintiffs in the suit. They sued to set aside the auction sale of one-half of mouzah Naila, which the Defendant, the now Appellant, on the 20th of March, 1871, caused to be sold in execution of a decree which he had obtained on the 24th of August, 1868, against Gungha Singh and others, and which half of the mouzah he himself purchased at that sale for Rs. 11,025.

(2.) THE claim was founded upon a deed of sale executed by the said Gungha Singh and others, by which they conveyed the property in dispute to the Plaintiffs. It was at one time contended that the property was under attachment at the time of the execution of the deed of sale; that the deed was not proved to have been executed on the 10th of July, 1868, the day of its date, and that it was collusive. But those objections have been abandoned, and it must now be taken that the deed was executed bona, fide and for a valuable consideration on the said 10th of July, 1868, before the property was under attachment.

(3.) AFTER the execution of the deed, viz., on the 12th of November, 1868, the property was attached in execution by the present Defendant, under his decree against the vendors, whereupon the present Plaintiffs intervened and objected, under Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act VIII. of 1859), that the property had, before attachment, been conveyed to them by the deed of the 10th of July. It was at that time admitted by all parties, including the present Defendant, that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the property, and that the deed of sale had been registered; and under those circumstances the property was, on the 15th of December, 1868, ordered by the Subordinate Judge to be released.