HARI GOVIND JOSHI Vs. RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiffs, the present appellants, sued to recover what they have called their one-half share in the land described in the plaint, together with mesne profits, alleging that it was sold in execution of plaintiffs Decree No. 665 of 1874 by Darkhast No. 1054 of 1875, and was bought by defendant 3's father both for the plaintiffs and defendants jointly, and that it was subsequently enjoyed jointly by them. The defendants are in actual possession of the land in suit. The defendants denied that the land was bought jointly, or, that the plaintiffs had ever received any of the profits of the land.

(2.) The first Court decided that the agreement to purchase the plaint land in common was illegal, and that on that ground the suit was not maintainable, and further that the suit was barred by Section 317, Civil Procedure Code, and on these findings dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs.

(3.) On appeal, the Assistant Judge, Thana, decided that the suit was not barred by Section 317, Civil Procedure Code, but that the suit was not maintainable as the agreement was illegal, because it was clear that the object of the agreement was to avoid the provisions of Section 294, Civil Procedure Code, and on these grounds confirmed the decree of the first Court.