LAWS(PVC)-1930-11-125

AJODHIA PRASAD Vs. DATA RAM

Decided On November 27, 1930
AJODHIA PRASAD Appellant
V/S
DATA RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration as to the extent of the share which the plaintiff has acquired by purchase. The plaintiff is the son of Kanhai Lal, who held a simple money decree, No. 371 of 1923, against Mathura Prasad, who is a member of a joint Hindu family. The joint family consists of Data Ram whom we shall call the grandfather, Data Ram's son Mathura Prasad whom we shall call the father, and Mathura Prasad's three minor sons whom we shall call the grandsons. The debt was a personal debt of the father Mathura Prasad. The decree-holder attached a half share in the joint family property and objections appear to have been raised by Data Ram which were disallowed presumably because his half-share had not been sought to be attached. Fresh objections were filed on behalf of the minor grandsons. On 13 October 1923 the decree-holder applied to the Court stating that he had attached only the right and interest of Mathura Prasad and that the objectors, namely, the minor grandsons, had no concern with it. The vakil for the minor objectors stated that if the Court ordered that only the rights and interest of Mathura Prasad would be sold he would not lead any evidence.

(2.) On 5 January 1924 the Court ordered that the rights and interest of the judgment-debtor without specification of shares should be sold and that the objections be allowed to that extent. Obviously this referred to the half-share which had been attached and sought to be put up for sale. On 20 March 1925 the rights and interest of Mathura Prasad in this half-share were sold and purchased by Ajodhia Prasad, the son of the decree-holder. The name of the grandfather Data Ram alone stood recorded in the revenue papers and the auction-purchaser therefore felt a considerable difficulty in applying either for the mutation of names in his favour or applying for partition in the revenue Court. He has accordingly instituted the present suit for a declaration as to the extent of his right in the property purchased by him. The minor defendants pleaded that in the execution proceedings the decree-holder expressly confined his attachment and sale to the rights and interest of the father Mathura Prasad and exempted the interests of the minor objectors and that therefore their interests had not passed. They also pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to sell more than one-eighth share in the entire estate, which alone would fall to the lot of Mathura Prasad at a complete partition of the family property.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the plaintiff has purchased only the share of Mathura Prasad which amounted to one-eighth in the joint family property. He has decreed the claim to that extent and dismissed the rest of it.