GANGA NARAYAN DUTTA Vs. INDRA NARAYAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case I think, this, appeal must be dismissed, inspite of the interesting argument which has been presented to us by the learned Vakil for the appellant, and the short ground is that there was a decree in the mortgage suit in which the defendants were not only the widow but also the then reversioner. The decree must, therefore, be taken to bind the whole estate. Under that decree a sale was held and a third party purchased the estate, and it seems to me that as long as that decree stands, and until that is set aside for good grounds, the present plaintiff cannot get behind it and maintain the present suit. For this reason I think that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. Asutosh Mookerjee, J.

(2.) I agree that this appeal must be dismissed.

(3.) The property in dispute belonged originally to one Ram Sankar Roy who died in 1887. He left a widow Brahmomoyi and a daughter s son Ram Gopal Sen. On the 13th May 1896, Brahmomoyi and Ram Gopal executed, in favour of one Anant Lal Das, a mortgage of the land in suit to secure a loan of Rs. 499. In 1602, the mortgagee sued the widow and her daughter s son to enforce the security and obtained the usual mortgage-decree. In execution of that decree, the property was sold by the Court on the 6th June 1905 and was purchased by the Shahas, now defendants-respondents. The grandson died in 1906, and the widow died on the 21st July 1909. The plaintiff is one of five persons who upon the death of the widow succeeded to the estate of Ram Sankar Roy as reversionary heirs in their character of his sister s sons. On the 20th September 1909 he instituted the present suit to recover the property from the purchasers, on the allegation that there was no legal necessity for the loan and that the mortgage and sale took place under circumstances which do not make those transactions binding upon him as one of the actual reversioners. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. Upon appeal that decree was reversed by the District Judge, and a second appeal to this Court was dismissed by Mr. Justice Roy.