SHAM SUNDER LAL Vs. ACHHAN KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON June 2, 1890, the present appellants brought their suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly against the present respondents for Rs. 32,858 8a. 6p., on account of a bond dated December

(2.) , 1877, and Rs. 53,485 4a. 6p., on account of a subsequent bond dated April 1, 1881, in all Rs. 86,338 13a., and to enforce payment by sale of the property purporting to be hypothecated by the two bonds. The First Court found that the personal remedy upon the bonds was barred by limitation, but that the bonds were effectual against the property. The High Court held that the property was not bound, and dismissed the suit. 2. The property sought to be sold for payment of the bond debts was formerly the estate of Rajah Khairati Lal, who died in 1866. He seems to have carried on during his lifetime a business of money-lender and dealer in hundis. He left no sons, and his widow, Rani Hulas Kuar, on his death succeeded to a widow's estate in his property. He left one daughter, the respondent Mussamat Achhan Kunwar, who was married to Bajah Lalji, and had two sons, Enayet Singh, the other respondent, and Shumster, who died some time after April 1,1881, the date of the second bond. Hulas Kuar died on January 22, 1878, and Lalji died about 1888. Lalji during his lifetime seems to have managed the property for Hulas Kuar, and after her death for his wife Achhah Kunwar, who on the death of her mother succeeded to her father's property for a daughter's estate. Enayet Singh, though named as a respondent, did not appear on this appeal.

(3.) THE bond of December 2, 1877, purports to be made by Rajah Lalji, son-in-law, Hulas Kuar, wife, and Achhan Kunwar, daughter, and Enayet Singh, grandson, and heirs of Rajah Khairati Lal, and contains an hypothecation of certain property formerly of Khairati Lai, and described as "in our possession and enjoyment as proprietors," for Rs. 10,000, of which Rs. 7683 3a. is deducted on account of debts previously due to the creditors, and Rs. 2311 13a. is said to be paid in cash. It is signed by Lalji alone, and it is at least doubtful whether such an execution would be a valid exercise of the power of attorney, but the counsel for Achhan Kunwar declined very properly to insist upon this point.