BACHCHI LAL Vs. DEBI DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1926 are connected and are defendants appeals arising out of two suits for pre-emption. Under a sale-deed dated 9th August 1924, shares in two khatas Nos. 2 and 7 in mahal Mustaqil and mahal Ihtamli of village Tirmau were sold to the defendants. Two suits were separately instituted. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-vendees were strangers and their names were wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. The defence raised by the defendants was that they were cosharers on the same footing as the plaintiff. The defendants claimed title through one Jagannath. Before the trial commenced the plaintiff's counsel made it clear that he was not admitting the title of Jagannath at all. The Court below has found in favour of the plaintiff and has decreed the claim except as regards mahal Ihtamli in which the defendants had become cosharers by virtue of another deed of gift dated 15 November 1920.

(2.) Sewak was a proprietor in this village and he died some time ago and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Jasodia. She also died some time about 1918. After her death the patwari reported that the names of Sewak's collaterals Ramadhin and another should be entered in the column of proprietors. An objection was made on behalf of Jagannath, who claimed that Mt. Jasodia had made a gift of the property in his favour and he was in possession as a donee. Apparently there was no registered deed and Jagannath was relying on an oral gift. On 7 May 1919, an application was filed on behalf of Ramadhin purporting to act for himself and as sarbarahkar (or guardian) of Tissu and Gopi in which the gift in favour of Jagannath was admitted, and there was a statement that the petitioners refused to take back the property and agreed to the mutation of names in favour of Jagannath. The Court accordingly ordered that the name of Jagannath should be entered in place of the deceased Mt. Jasodia.

(3.) The plaintiff led no evidence in the Court below to show that any one other than Ramadhin and Gopi were the collarals entitled to succeed on the death of Mt. Jasodia. Nor was it made clear before the Court who Tissu was as whose guardian Ramadhin had acted. In the absence of such evidence the Court below has assumed that Ramadhin and Gopi were the next reversioners of Mt. Jasodia's husband, and that therefore there was a consent on the part of the person in whom the property had become vested on her death. The learned Judge has also assumed in favour of the defendants and this consent of the reversioners will estop them from ousting Jagannath and from taking possession from his vendees, the present defendants, but has held that consent cannot confer perfect title on Jagannath and his vendees so long as the full period of 12 years has not expired.