MAHANT GYAN PRAKASH DAS Vs. MTDUKHAN KUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is necessary in this case to state with some detail the case which the plaintiff made against the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff's prayer in the suit was that, after declaring a certain deed of 28 May 1917 to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, the title of the plaintiff to hold her share in the properties, etc., be found and the plaintiff be restored to possession. There is then a prayer for partition.

(2.) The learned Judge in this case has found in favour of the plaintiff in the following circumstances: The plaintiff is the widow of one Situ Singh. She had an eight annas interest in the property of her deceased husband, the other eight annas belonging to Jai Prakash Singh the brother of Situ Singh. On 28 May 1917, the plaintiff executed a deed which has been described as a deed of relinquishment in favour of her brother-in-law who was defendant 2 in the action. On the title to the 16 annas which was obtained by defendant 2 by reason of the deed executed by the plaintiff, a mortgage was executed and eventually a mortgage decree was obtained and the mortgagee purchased the property in execution of the decree; the mortgagee-purchaser is defendant 1 in the suit.

(3.) Now the two questions which arise are first what was the effect of the deed executed by the Musammat; and, secondly, whether as alleged by the defendant- appellant, the action was barred by limitation. These were two separate issues but they were wrapped up one with the other for the reasons which will presently appear.