- (1.) This appeal arises out of one of many cases joined in one suit in which the plaintiff, Lachman Prasad, on behalf of himself and Radha Mohan, his minor brother, as sons and heirs of Jitan Lal, deceased, sued in forma pauperis to recover possession of certain lands, by reversal of certain deeds of absolute and conditional sale, executed by his father Jitan Lal, and which the plaintiff alleges were executed without any necessity. The deeds were all executed by Jitan Lal and Udit Sing, the brother of Jitan Lal, jointly, but the plaintiff's claim is confined to the one-half share alleged to have belonged to Jitan Lal, his father, Jitan Lal and Udit Sing were the sons of Baiju Lal. It was admitted, in the course of the argument, that Lachman Prasad was born in the year 1837, and Radhamohan, about the end of 1856, or the beginning of 1857, and that Jitan Lal, the father, died on the 8th of August 1857. The property in this and the other cases is situate in Zilla Sarun, and is subject to the Mitakshara law. It was ancestral property inherited by Jitan Lal and Udit Sing before the birth of either of the plaintiffs. The Court has already, in a Full Bench decision of Rajaram Tewari v. Lachman Prasad Case No. 228 of 1865; June 7th, 1867 (B.L.R. Sup. 602), pointed out the great inconvenience arising from the joinder in one suit of many defendants having separate interests in distinct portions of the subject-matter of the suit, and each claiming under different circumstances. The inconvenience is still more apparent when we consider the issues of fact which were raised in this case and bear in mind the dates of the several deeds which were sought to be set aside.
(2.) The issues of fact were: First.--Did plaintiff's father, Lala Jitan Lal, sell his ancestral estates in suit conditionally and absolutely for small sums of money, when there was no such necessity for their sale as has received the sanction of Hindu law, and spend the consideration-money of the same extravagantly; or were the said alienations effected by plaintiff's father at proper valuations, to pay off his ancestral debts, to contribute to the expenses of the education of his sons, and the marriage of his daughters, to meet the demand of Government revenue, and to defray expenses which were considered necessary and sanctioned by Hindu law Second.--Are the deeds of absolute and conditional sale, whereof the reversal is sought, reversible or not If so, which of the documents is reversible, and on what grounds Third.--Are the liabilities under loans contracted and bonds executed by plaintiff's father, on the strength of which decrees have been passed by the Civil Court, valid or not Is the claim for possession of properties, which were publicly sold in satisfaction of those debts, joint or not Fourth.--Even if it be proved that plaintiff's father was an extravagant person, and that alienations of his ancestral estate were effected, when there was no such occasion for the same as has received the sanction of Hindu law, can the plaintiff be held entitled to possession of the properties in suit with mesne profits, or not If so, then, from what time and at what amount is the claim for mesne profits to be reckoned, and which of the defendants are to be held liable, and which not, for the payment of the same Fifth.--Is the plaintiffs' claim to the property, for the alienation of which their father had executed certain documents before their birth, just and valid, or not
(3.) Each of these issues applied not to any one particular deed, but to each of the several deeds under which the defendants respectively claimed.;