DEONANDAN TEWARY Vs. DRAUPADI KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Gaya arising out of an action in which the plaintiff claimed a declaration with regard to a sale deed on 20 June 1928 the consideration for which was Rs. 3510 divided up into several items the particulars of which are immaterial for the purpose of the decision of this case, excepting to say that the plaintiffs admitted by their plaint that part of the consideration had not been paid over to the defendants, the vendors. It appears that on the same date another share but with regard to another tauzi number was sold to a person who is now found to be a member of the same joint family as that of the plaintiffs, and in this action it was the defence of the respondents that the two transactions were one, although expressed in the two deeds as separate transactions: but perhaps to he more accurate, it should be stated that they appeared on the face of it to be two separate transactions, although the defendants said they were one.

(2.) The learned Judge in the Court below in affirming the decision of the trial Court, has gone into several matters with regard! to this question: first of all whether Jainandan Tewari was joint with the plaintiffs who were members of a joint family, and such other questions as whether the two tauzi Nos. i.e. 522 and 524, the subject-matter of the respective deeds, were cultivated jointly or separately, and matters which would lead to a conclusion one way or the other whether, as I have already said and repeat, these persons were members of a joint family.

(3.) On a consideration of these facts the Judge has come to the conclusion that the transactions were one and not two as they appeared to be. I find myself in considerable difficulty in understanding what the learned Judge means. I can well understand that an agreement, might be proved (I am not for the moment considering the question of admissibility im evidence of such an agreement) that it was agreed that this property should be sold in circumstances which would lead one to say that it was one transaction.