BAJRANGI LAL Vs. GHURA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is connected with Second Appeals Nos. 1354 of 1914 and 1511 of 1914. The suit out of which the appeals arise was brought by Ghura Rai against Lala Bajrangi Lal and Chatarpati Ojha. The plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1 had fraudulently obtained from him a sale-deed on misrepresentation. He also alleged that the sale-deed was void because it included a transfer of part of an occupancy holding. As against defendant No. 2 he claimed to have a mortgage- deed set aside on the ground that it was mortgage of an occupancy holding which was void by law. He claimed accordingly that the sale-deed and the mortgage- deed might be declared void. Alternative relief was claimed that if for any reason the two documents should be held to be genuine, then he should get Rs. 1,600, part of the consideration which was not paid. The present appeal is the appeal of the defendant No. 1. Second Appeal No. 1354 of 1914 is an appeal by the same defendant on the question of costs. The third appeal is that of defendant No. 2, who complains that the Court below has not decided whether or not he should get back the Rs. 400 which he alleges he paid as consideration for the mortgage.

(2.) The Court of first instance has found many of the issues in favour of defendant No. 1. In his case that Court found that the sale-deed was duly executed for good consideration and that there was no fraud. It, however, declared the sale-deed void because it included a transfer of a portion of an occupancy holding. As against defendant No. 2 it held that the mortgage of an occupancy holding was bad in law and (apparently) that the Rs. 400 was not paid.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court held that the mortgage in favour of defendant No. 2 was void. It also decided a question of costs, the correctness of which decision depends on the ultimate result in the case. It also held that defendant No. 2 was not entitled to get back the Rs. 400 he alleged he paid. All other questions were left undecided.