AZIZ AHMAD KHAN Vs. CHHOTE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before this Court were the plaintiffs in the Court below. They brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of Rs. 26,972-8-0 by sale of certain villages, and, in the alternative, for recovery of different items of money byway of contribution, to be enforced against certain properties held by some of the defendants. The suit has been dismissed on two grounds, namely, one, that the plaintiffs did not put before the Court sufficient materials to enable it to work out the respective burdens to which the properties might be liable: and the other, that the plaintiff has failed to implead certain people who are necessary for a proper determination of the suit. The respondents support the judgment on these two points taken by the Court below and also on the ground of limitation. The Court found that the suit was not time barred.

(2.) The points for determination in this appeal are: 1. Whether proper parties are before the Court and, if not, whether, with a view to the provisions of Order 1, Rule 9, Civil P.C., the Court should not have added the necessary parties and then determined the suit? 2. Whether the record does furnish sufficient materials for a proper adjudication on the merits of the case?

(3.) Whether the suit should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation as well? 3. The facts of the case, so far as we are concerned with them in this appeal, are all admitted and are as follows: One Jamil-ul-Rahman was the owner of considerable immovable property and was in a state of chronic indebtedness He entered into eight transactions with respect to his properties, and they will be stated presently. The suit for contribution is based on transaction No. 6 which will be detailed at its proper place. The transactions are: 1. On 22 September, 1897 Jamil-ul-Rahman whom we shall hereafter call the mortgagor, made a simple mortgage for Rs. 12,000 of five properties, namely, a house in Moradabad, the villages Nagla, Rasulpur, Ganwari and two other villages. The mortgage was in favour of one Parshadi Lal who has died, but his legal representatives are on the record as defendants 5 to 8. 2. Jamil-ul-Rahman mortgaged, on 10 March 1899 for a sum of Rs. 1,000, a 5-biswa share in village Shadipur in favour of one Ganpat Rai, whose legal representative is a party in the suit, defendant 19. 3. The mortgagor mortgaged, on the same date, namely 10 March 1899, another 5-biswa share of the village Shadipur for a sum of Rs. 1,000 in favour of Jawahir Lal, whose legal representative is on the record, among the defendants, as defendant 20.