9911796707
TMI Blog1897 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true effect of the orders and transactions which now govern the case, it will be sufficient for this judgment to touch only on a few of them. 2. In the year 1870 a Mahomedan gentleman named Asghar, being then the sole recorded proprietor of the village, mortgaged it to one who in this discussion has been called Agha. Asghar afterwards granted the village by way of gift to his nephews Yusuf and Nasim, who again mortgaged it to Agha. 3. In the year 1879 one Sahib-un-Nissa filed a plaint against Agha and Yusuf, claiming to be a creditor of Asghar and to have a charge on the village for her debt: and on the 22nd of November 1880 she obtained a decree to that effect. Under that decree a sale took place, at which Hakim Mahomed Masih purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the suit bad been continued by his heirs. 6. In the meantime the heirs of Agha had prosecuted their proceedings in execution of his decree of 20th March 1883. On the 22nd October 1884 the village was put up for sale, and was purchased by the defendant Moti, who either was then in possession or obtained it afterwards. It is contended by the defendant that this sale must he sat aside before the plaintiff's right can be established. 7. It may be as well here to dispose of a very extraordinary contention set up for the defendant. He bought whatever interest belonged to the heirs of Agha who were mortgagees, and to Yusuf and Nasim who were mortgagors. But three months before he bought, Masih had instituted his suit against those very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oti Application, saying that the d(sic)ree of 1885 was not binding on Moti at any rate in the present execution proceedings in a suit between heirs. His language, though elliptical, points to a sound ground for his decision. It was obviously irregular and illegal for Amina to use an order made as between her and her co-heirs, for the purpose of dispossessing one who was a stranger to Masih's estate and to the litigation between his heirs. The decree of 1885 had nothing to do with the matter. 9. The cause was heard first before the District Judge who decided adversely to the plaintiff. First he held that the suit is one to set aside the order of November 1886, and that so it falls within article 13 of the Limitation Act and, not bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
