RAM RUP TELI Vs. KHADERU TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the Court of first instance is the appellant before me. He sued the respondents, Khaderu Teli and several others, on the allegation that the defendants other than Khaderu Teli and he, the plaintiff himself, once formed a joint Hindu family. While the family was joint Bihari Lal, the father of defendant 2, as the then head of the family, purchased the property in suit in the name of defendant 1. Bihari Lal had made similar purchases in the names of people other than members of the family, but no dispute arose in respect of those properties. There was a partition in the family, and the property In suit fell into the share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has, however, been resisted by the auction-purchaser, defendant 1, and he has therefore brought this suit to have his right established and for possession.

(2.) The defence of Khaderu was that he was the real purchaser of the property, and that Section 66, Civil P.C., barred the suit.

(3.) The trial Court held that Section 66, Civil P.C., was no bar to the maintenance of the suit, and that as a matter of fact Khaderu was not the real purchaser, but that the purchase was made for the family by Bihari Lal, the head of the family.