Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1940 DIGILAW 18 (ALL)

Ram Kripal v. Abdul Wahid

1940-01-17

BENNET, VERMA

body1940
JUDGMENT Bennet and Verma, JJ. - The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed in the revenue Court by the Respondents u/s 44 of the Agra Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the Defendants from a plot No. 308. The Courts below have agreed in decreeing the suit. 2. It appears that one Abul Hasan was the owner of a oneanna share in this village and plot No. 308 appertained to this one anna share. Abul Hasan was cultivating it as his sir. On 21st May, 1923, Abul Hasan gave a usufructuary mortgage over this plot No. 308 to Sakhawat and Riasat. By three sale-deeds, executed in 1925,1926 and 1927, Abul Hasan sold 11 pies out of his one auna share to the predecessors-in-interest of the Plaintiff-Respondents. Shortly afterwards partition proceedings amongst the co-sharers were started in the revenue Court. During, the pendency of these partition proceedings Abul Hasan made two transfers. He soid his remaining, one pie share, "minus plot No. 308", to one Ram Bali. Presumably Ram Bali became a party to the partition proceedings thereafter. Abul Hasan further executed a sale-deed in respect of plot No. 308 in favour of the Defendant-Appellants and left with them the amount due to Sakhawat and Riasat It is stated that the Appellants have paid off the mortgage money of Sakhawat and Riasat. In the partition proceedings in the revenue Court a separate patti was formed for Ram Bali (the purchaser of the one pie share) called patti Abul Hasan and another patti was formed for the Plaintiffs called patti Sain Mian. In the partition, plot No. 308 was first allotted to Ram Bali's patti. Ram Bali however, did not want it and objected to its being allotted to his patti. He requested the partition Court to allot plot No. 308 to the Plaintiffs' patti and to take out other land equal in area and value from the Plaintiffs' patti and to allot it to him. It is common ground that this request of Ram Bali was granted and plot No. 308 was allotted to the Plaintiffs' patti and an area equal to the area of that plot was taken away from, the Plaintiffs' patti and was allotted to Ram Bali's patti. It is common ground that this request of Ram Bali was granted and plot No. 308 was allotted to the Plaintiffs' patti and an area equal to the area of that plot was taken away from, the Plaintiffs' patti and was allotted to Ram Bali's patti. The Appellant urge, firstly, that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to eject them, and secondly, that, at any rate, the Plaintiffs are bound to pay to them the mortgage money alleged to have been paid by them to Sakhawat and Riasat. It seems to us that both these contentions are without substance. When Abul Hasan executed the sale deed in respect of plot No. 308 in favour of the Appellants there were several co-sharers in what had been originally the one anna share in the zamindari His position, therefore, at the most, was that of a co-sharer in undivided property who by an arrangement with the other co-sharers takes possession of a definite portion of the property. It is well settled that it is not permissible for any such co-sharer to. alienate to a third person as his exclusive property the portion which he has been, thus occupying by agreement with his co-sharers Jamna v. Jhalli (1920) 18 A.L.J. 129. He had No. right whatsoever to sell plot No. 308 to the Appellants and could therefore confer no title on them. Furthermore, as has already been stated, the Appellants' purchase was during the pendency of the partition proceedings and they cannot be heard to say that they are not affected by those proceedings. The question whether the Plaintiffs would or would not have had to redeem Sakhawat and Riasat, if the Appellants had not intervened by purporting to purchase plot No. 308, is not before us. In our opinion the Appellants acquired no right by their purchase and are not entitled to any relief. If they have paid the mortgage money due to Sakhawat and Riasat they have done so as volunteers and are not entitled to be reimbursed The decree passed by the Courts below is perfectly correct. 3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.