JHAMMAN SINGH Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 650 as damages (not for refund of sale-consideration as urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant) in the following circumstances.

(2.) On 16 April 1936, the defendant-appellant applied under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, after which, on 21 April 1936, the proceedings were forwarded to the Special Judge under an order of the Collector. Later, on 9 June 1936, the defendant executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of a part of the property which became the subject of the proceedings under the said Act. On the basis of the deed, the vendees (respondents) laid a claim to the property purchased by them Under Section 11 of the Act. This claim was rejected on the ground that the sale-deed having been executed after the Collector had passed an order under Section 6 of the Act was absolutely void. It may be mentioned that after the sale-deed, the vendees had entered into possession of the property and even got their names mutated, but that after the order of the Special Judge declaring the sale-deed as void, the defendant-vendor had again taken possession over the property and got his name restored in the revenue papers. On 1 June 1912, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs- vendees for the relief I have already mentioned.

(3.) The only question argued before me was whether this suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that it was so barred and dismissed it. The lower appellate Court took the view that the plaintiffs were entitled to a simple money decree on the basis of the indemnity clause in the sale-deed which authorised them to claim compensation from the vendor in case they lost possession over the property. In that view, it held that the claim was within time under Art. 116, Limitation Act, and decreed the same for Rs. 541-4.