RAGHUBIR SARAN Vs. RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and the connected appeal arise out of the same suit instituted by the daughters sons of one Pat Ram, who died about the year 1894. At the time of his death, he appears to have been in fairly affluent circumstances and the property he left is the one, which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. His family, on the date of his demise, consisted of a widow Mt. Dareo Kuar and three daughters, Mt. Mathuri, Mt. Mahru and Mt. Dhapo. Pat Ram's widow, Mt. Dareo, remained in possession of his property for a number of years and at the time of her death, she did not leave any liabilities behind in the shape of debts or charges upon the property. The exact date of the death of Mt. Dareo is not known, but it is an admitted fact and there is no contest that upon her death, the three daughters got possession of the property under the ordinary Hindu law of succession. Mt. Mathuri died in 1907 and the estate came into the possession of Mt. Mahru and Mt. Dhapo as joint tenants. Mt. Mahru died in 1908. leaving three sons, Ram Saran and Hoshiara, who are the plaintiffs in the present action, and Khazana who died before the institution of the present suit. These took possession of the property which stood in the name of their mother in the village administration papers. This provoked a suit by Mt. Dhapo about the year 1910 for the removal of their names from the revenue papers and for recovery of possession of the property as also mesne profits. The claim was decreed and from the year 1910 onwards, Mt. Dhapo was the only person who under the Hindu law could claim a title to the property as a limited owner.

(2.) Musammat Dhapo executed a simple mortgage in favour of Khushi Ram and others on or about 9 December 1907. On 15 May 1909 she executed a simple mortgage in favour of Kanhaiya Lal, defendant 1, for a sum of Rs. 1,100, the object of the loan being the institution of a suit against the present plaintiffs and against one Tej Ram. The property hypothecated under this document was a half share in the khewat No. 2/1 comprising 3 biswas 6 biswansis 13 khachwansis measuring 111 bighas and 7 biswas pukhta of land in mauza Sahababad.

(3.) It appears that Mt. Dhapo did not pay her quota of Government revenue with reference to this property for the kharif of 1319F and for the whole of 1920F to the lambardar Bhure Singh. Although there was no pressure upon the estate by any processes sought to be enforced by the Government against Bhure Singh and his cosharers for recovery of the amount of arrears of Government revenue, Bhure Singh paid Rs. 84-3-0 being the share of Mt. Dhapo for the kharif of 1319F and Rs. 189-10-0 being her share for the entire year 1320F. Bhure Singh was entitled to recover this amount from. Mt. Dhapo under Section 159, Tenancy Act (Act 2, 1901). We next find Bhure Singh assigning his right to recover this amount from Mt. Dhapo to Lala Kallu Mal who was defendant 4 in the suit. The deed of assignment is not before the Court but it was executed some time about 7 July 1913. Kallu Mal instituted a suit against Mt. Dhapo for the recovery of Rs 284-4-0, and tacked on to the claim certain items due on account of village expenses and haq-i-lambardari. The allegations on which the suit was launched cannot be ascertained. We do not know the exact frame of the suit and the exact relief prayed for by the plaintiffs. We do not know whether the amount was claimed from Mt. Dhapo in her personal or in her representative capacity. The copy of the decree, however, shows that the suit was directed not only against the defaulter Mt. Dhapo but against her sister's sons and also against Bhure Singh lambardar. On 5 November 1913 an ex-parte decree was passed against "the defendant" for Rs. 305-6-9.