LAWS(PVC)-1909-7-162

CHURAMAN KANDU Vs. AJUDHIA SINGH

Decided On July 09, 1909
CHURAMAN KANDU Appellant
V/S
AJUDHIA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out 6i a suit brought by the respondent plaintiff to recover possession of immovable property together with mesne profits under the following circumstances, to understand which it is necessary to set forth the following pedigree

(2.) Suchit Singh died some time prior to the year 1866 leaving a widow Musammat Sukh-mani who, on 11 January of that year, executed a sale-deed of the property now in suit, in favour of Gopaldat Kandu, the prede-dessor of the defendants-appellants. At that time, Ramhit Singh, the grandfather of the defendants Gokul and Ummed, was the nearest male relative of Suchit Singh; the present plaintiff-respondent, Ajudhia Singh, being one degree further removed as shown by the above pedigree. The sale-deed purported to be for consideration, and to have been effected for the purpose" of liquidating the debts of Suchit Singh. It was signed by Ramhit Singh as a witness.

(3.) Ramhit Singh and Ajudhia Singh, however, as plaintiffs, jointly instituted against the widow and her transferee, a suit on the 12 November 1868 in the Court of the Chief Munsif of Azamgarh. They sued (1) to have the sale-deed set aside on the ground that it had been made contrary to Hindu Law and was without consideration, and (2) for possession of the property. The record, or rather so much of it, as is before the Court;, shows that the Munsif held that the deed had not been made for lawful cause, or consideration, the issue being Is the deed of sale liable to reversal as having been executed contrary to Hindu Law or was the sale rendered lawful by being a bona fide transaction in unavoidable liquidation of her husband's debts?" Pending the decision of the case, i.e., on 21 January, 1869, Ramhit compromised with the defendants, and Ajudhia Singh alone continued the suit, and the decree set aside the? sale-deed as being-invalid as against his interests and awarded him possession. It was passed on 29 January 1869. Gopaldat appealed to the District Judge, who upheld the Munsifs decree. A second appeal was then preferred to the High Court on the following grounds: (1) that Ramhit Singh having, under the compromise of 21 January 1869, consented to the sale and withdrawn his claim, the whole claim should not have been decreed. (2) that as the share of Suchit had been separate, under the rulings of the Court, a decree for possession should not have been granted. (3) that Ramhit being the nearest heir to Suchit Singh, Ajudhia Singh, being more remote, could not inherit, The High Court modified the decree of the lower appellate Court only in so far as the latter had awarded possession to Ajudhia Singh, and maintained the declaration that the sale was invalid. The judgment concludes as follows ;- in the face of the Court's finding as to the nature of the sale the purchaser may not have a complete and indefeasible title but a remote reversioner cannot, we think, in such a case, sue for and obtain immediate possession. Conceding his right to sue, the only decree should be, not a decree for possession, but a decree declaring the invalidity of the sale as respects himself and other rovorsioners who have not assented thereto. We shall amend the decree accordingly." The above decision clearly proceeded on the basis of Suchit Singh's separation from the other members of the family and held (1) that Ajudhia Singh, though a remote reversioner, had a right to sue for a declaration, (2) that the transfer was invalid as against his interest but that ho was not entitled to obtain possession. The grounds of appeal show that Gopaldat's case was that Suchit was separate and that, therefore,. possession could net be awarded to the plaintiff (the widow being alive) and also that Ajudhia Singh being a remote reversioner had no right to sue.