SHEOSARAN SINGH Vs. GAYA AMLA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs who filed a suit challenging a sale of property in execution of an award made by the Assistant Registrar of the Co- operative Societies of the Gaya Circle, against the appellant Sheosaran Singh on 13 March 1930. It appears that MuralL dhar, father of Sheosaran, borrowed a sum of Rs. 500 from the society. Muralidhar died on 25 February 1925, and on that date a sum of Rs. 213 was found due to the society. It appears, on 27th August 1925, Sheosaran paid Rs. 25 to the society, Rs. 4-6-0 as principal and Rs. 20-10-0 as interest. It appears that Sheosaran was entitled to Rs. 12-8-0 as dividend of shares purchased by Muralidhar on 20 July 1927. On 2nd September 1929 reference was made to the Assistant Registrar for an award and the award was given on 13 March 1930. Execution under the award commenced in the Civil Court on 22 July, 1931.

(2.) On 25 July 1932, the joint family properties were sold. It is alleged that on 18 November 1932 Sheosaran and his family separated and Sheosaran got a small share of the family property. The present suit was filed on 6 April 1935, and was dismissed on 28 March 1936. Against that an appeal was filed before the lower Appellate Court, which was filed after the period of limitation but time was extended under Section 5, Limitation Act. It was ultimately dismissed on 11th December 1936.

(3.) The lower Appellate Court has found in concurrence with the findings of the learned Munsif that there was no fraud in obtaining the award. It held further that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit questioning the award of the Assistant Registrar. On the question whether plaintiffs 2 to 5 were bound by the award the Court came to the conclusion that they were bound, holding that the ancestral property in the hands of the plaintiffs is liable to be attached and sold in execution of the award. It held further that the sale affected the 4 annas of tauzi No. 10334 and 2 annas 13 dams odd of tauzi No. 5902 and that the whole of this property passed on the sale. The Court held further that the purchaser was not bound by the result of the partition suit. On the question of res judicata, it was held that the plaintiffs were not barred by the principles of res judicata; and so far as the last point, whether the suit was barred under Order 22, Rule 92, Civil P.C., the lower Court was of opinion that Sheosaran was not entitled to challenge the sale in a separate suit.