HALDHER PRASAD SINGH Vs. NATHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the decree-holders arises out of an objection in execution which was decided against the appellants under Section 47, Civil P.C. The mother of the appellants sued to recover, possession of certain properties after setting aside alienations made by her own mother. For the purpose of prosecution of this suit she entered into a champertous agreement with Narsingh Singh. The suit was decreed for part of the zamindari property claimed with mesne profits and costs and the decree was affirmed in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Mt. Ramzhari Kuer died in 1932 and the present appellants were substituted. They entered into an agreement with Narsingh Singh similar to that between the lady and him. In pursuance of the agreement they executed on 10 October 1934 a sale deed in his favour.

(2.) They are now seeking to execute the decree for costs and there is pending an application by them for ascertainment of the mesne profits. This objection was taken against the execution of the decree for costs by judgment-debtors 21-23. They are brothers of Narsingh Singh who is now dead and they have alleged in their petition of objection that the decree for costs and mesne profits was transferred to Narsingh Singh by the sale deed of 1934 so that the appellants can no longer execute this part of the decree. The Subordinate Judge accepted the case of the objectors; hence this appeal.

(3.) The question turns on the reading and construction of the sale deed. The Subordinate Judge has treated it as governed by a passage which he cites and understands to mean that besides the zamindari property the decree for costs and mesne profits was also transferred. In appeal we are invited to examine the document as a whole and to hold that the passage referred to by the Subordinate Judge does not bear the meaning he has attributed to it both on a proper construction of the words used and also because that meaning is contrary to the tenor of the whole of the document.