SURJA NARAIN MANDAL Vs. NANDA LAL SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject-matter of this litigation is a chuck named Kirtana Kanali. It was conveyed to one Braja Lal Singh by a deed executed in October 1878. Braja Lal was one of five brothers, the names of the other four being Madan Mohan,. Radha Madhab. Kartic and Nanda Lal. The main question that had to be tried in these suits was whether, by the conveyance of October 1878, Braja Lal became alone entitled to the chuck, or whether it was conveyed to him on behalf of all the five brothers.

(2.) At the time of the conveyance the chuck was subject to a mokarari lease. In August 1884, three of the five brothers, namely, Braja Lal, Radha Madhab and Kartic, mortgaged the chuck, together with two other properties, to one Surja Narain Gosain. Some two years after words in December 1886 Braja Lal purchased the mokarari interest in execution of a decree obtained against the holders of the mokarari (enure. In 1896 Surja Narain Gosain brought a suit and obtained a decree on his mortgage, and in April 1902 Kirtana Kanali was sold in execution of the mortgage decree and purchased by the appellants. The appellants then took delivery of possession, but they found themselves opposed by Nanda Lal and by the son of Madau Mohan, these being the two out of the five brothers, who had not joined in the mortgage to Surja Narain. They wore also obstructed by Mohesh Mandal, who claimed to have purchased Braja Lal's share in execution of a decree obtained on a mortgage subsequent to that of Snrja Narain Gosain. The obstruction led to three claim cases under Section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and they were all decided against (he present appellants, who accordingly brought three suits, against Nanda Lal, against Madan Mohan's son and against Mohesh Mandal. In all the suits these appellants alleged that Braja Lal was entitled to the whole of the chuck, and the defence was that Braja Lal had only 1/5 of the chuck, which was held by all the live brothers in undivided shares, and that therefore (he appellants had in execution of Surja Narain Gosain's mortgage decree purchased only 3/5ths of the chuck.

(3.) As regards the suit brought against Mohesh Mandal the appellants also alleged that they were entitled to the possession of it notwithstanding Mohesh Mandal's purchase in execution of his mortgage decree, and they also alleged that Mohesh had lost the light of redemption.