KAMPTA PARSHAD Vs. MOHAN BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case on which the decision of this appeal turns are as follows: The plaintiffs, respondents to this appeal, sold certain zamindari shares for Rs. 900 to Adit Singh and four others. On the same date they sold for Rs. 150 to Adit Singh alone, two rent Court decrees in their favour. Adit Singh could not pay down the purchase-money of this sale, and as security therefor he mortgaged to the plaintiffs his share in the property which had been purchased from them by the former of these two sale- deeds. The mortgage was created on the same date but subsequent to the sale. The present appellants brought a suit to pre-empt the zamindari. To this suit they joined as parties the vendors and the vendees, the former being the mortgagees under the subsequent mortgage.

(2.) These vendors did not defend the suit and the appellants obtained a decree conditional on payment of the full consideration for the sale. This sum they paid and then were placed in possession. The vendors (mortgagees) have now sued to enforce their mortgage. Adit Singh having died, they made his two sons parties to the suit and they also impleaded the pre-emptors, as owners of the mortgaged property. They asked for a decree for sale of the property in the first instance, and in the alternative, for a decree against the persons and property of the sons of Adit Singh. The first Court granted them a decree for sale and dismissed their alternative claim.

(3.) They preferred no appeal bat the present appellants (pre-emptors) did. The lower appellate Court held that the property was not liable for the mortgage debt, in the hands of the pre-emptors, and dismissed the suit as against the appellants. A second appeal was preferred to this Court and the learned Judge, who heard it, held in favour of the plaintiffs, that the property was liable in the hands of the pre- emptors for the mortgage debt, decreed the appeal and remanded the case for decision on the merits. The defendants pre-emptors have, therefore, preferred this appeal under the Letters Patent. The sons of Adit Singh were not parties to the second appeal and are not parties to this appeal.