BATUL BEGAM Vs. MANSUR ALI KHAN
LAWS(PVC)-1901-7-18
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on July 13,1901

BATUL BEGAM Appellant
VERSUS
MANSUR ALI KHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Robertson, J - (1.) The sole question in this appeal is whether the suit, brought to declare a right of pre-emption against the heir of a mortgagee by conditional sale, who has foreclosed, is time-barred, six years having elapsed from the expiry of the year of grace after foreclosure; and the main controversy comes lo be whether the 120th article of the second schedule to the Limitation Act of 1877 applies to the case. Admittedly it does apply, unless either Art. 10 or Art. 144 applies; and the real question is whether the appellant is right in affirming that the case falls under Art. 10. There is, however, a subordinate question as to the period from which the six years run, assuming Art. 120 to apply.
(2.) The appellant is the wife of the nominal respondent, Mansur Ali Khan, and she derives from him by gift a six-pie share of his original interest in the villages now in dispute, the remainder of his interest being still vested in him. This Mansur Ali Khan and his brother, Zahur Ali Khan, at the date of the mortgage owned two- thirds of each of the villages of Pathringwa, Senduria, and Pipra Kalan, each brother holding shares of 5 annas 4 pies; and the two owned the whole of the village of Parsa, each brother holding an eight-anna share. The brothers were Muhammadans. Two of the villages were of pure zamindari tenure, the others were imperfect pattidari.
(3.) On the 14 of March, 1868, Zahur Ali Khan, in consideration of money lent, executed a deed of conditional sale to Sarju Prasad, now deceased (whose heir is the respondent Bhagwati Prasad), of the whole of his shares in the four villages. It is unnecessary to set out this sale deed, as nothing turns on its particular terms. No change of possession took place on the execution of the mortgage. Zahur Ali Khan died in January 1876. In 1889 the mortgagee having also died, the respondent, Bhagwati Prasad, his heir, foreclosed (by proceedings taken under Regulation XVII of 1806), and the money was not paid within the year of grace, which expired on the 20 of January, 1881. Some litigation ensued which is immaterial to the present question and the rehearsal of which would only obscure the narrative. In 1890, Bhagwati sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur that he might "be put in proprietary possession of a 5 anna 4 pie share in each of Senduria, Pathringwa, and Pipra Kalan and an eight-anna share of mauza Parsa by ejecting and dispossessing the defendants or any of them who may be found in possession thereof and by declaring their right of ownership to be extinct," and he obtained a decree which on appeal was affirmed by the High Court on the 6 of July, 1893. The terms of the decree were inter alia: "It is decreed and ordered that the claim of the plaintiff for possession of the shares of the villages mentioned in the relief be decreed." On the 27 of November, 1893, Bhagwati executed a dakhalnama, declaring that under the order of the Judge "Munshi Jamiat Rai, the Amin of the Court, has given formal possession to me, the decree-holder, through my karinda (agent) over the shares of the villages detailed below," and the names of the villages and number of the shares are duly set out. Mutation of names was also obtained in respect to the shares. Bhagwati then attempted to take physical possession of the estate, but he was successfully resisted by Mansur Ali Khan. Bhagwati therefore never had possession at all, unless the possession of Mansur Ali Khan or the possession of the tenants, or his own "formal possession" will suffice; and it has not been suggested that his legal rights entitled him to anything more, in the way of possession, than he actually obtained, unless and until he had enforced a partition, which in fact never took place.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.