AMARSINGH Vs. LAXMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Ijlas-i-Khas appeal transferred to the High Court for disposal.

(2.) ONE Nathkaran obtained a decree under orders of the Musahib Ala of Marwar on the 22nd of September, 1901, for recovery of Rs. 22,387/8/-from one Rampratap, and in execution of that decree an Amin was appointed at first, and thereafter by an order of the Mahakma Khas, dated the 13th of September, 1904, the judgment-debtor's one-fourth share in village Burakia, Tehsil Jodhpur, was directed to be handed over to the decree-holder. The decree-holder was granted an Ijara for Rs. 500/-, out of which Rs. 113/10/- was to be deposited in Baqiyat uptil Samwat, 1966, and the rest was to be appropriated by him. This Ijara was subsequently raised to Rs. 700/-by an order of the Mahakma Khas, dated the 23rd of January, 1909. The decree holder and his descendants remained in possession of the property thereafter. On the 28th of April, 1944, Mst. Lakshmi Bai, widow and legal representative of Rampratap, made an application that the decree-holder had been in possession since 1901, and must have recovered far in excess of the sum decreed, and that in any case the possession of the decree-holder having exceeded 30 years, the decree should be considered to have been paid off, and that the possession of the property should be restored to the petitioner, and the decree-holder be directed to repay the excess amount realized. Amar Singh and Ram Singh, grand-sons and legal representatives of Nathkaran, opposed the petition on the ground that on the 18th of February, 1908, an order was passed by the Mahakma Khas that half of the Ijara money was to be credited towards interest, and the rest towards the principal, and that, in any case, a large amount of the decree was still outstanding, and the decree-holder was entitled to retain possession untill his decree had been paid off. The District Judge held on the 8th of October, 2957, that under the Notification of the Government, dated the 30th of March, 1932, a mortgage or Ijara for more than 24 years was invalid, and by the end of that period the debt secured under the mortgage lease was to be deemed to have been discharged, and that, accordingly, in this case, as the decree-holder had admittedly enjoyed possession for more than 24 years, the decree-holder was not entitled to retain possession any longer. The District Judge declared that the decree should be deemed to have been fully satisfied, and directed restoration of possession to the petitioner, Mst. Lakshmi Bai.