9911796707
TMI Blog1887 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action as regards all the property, but as an action against the several Defendants as regards the properties of which they were severally purchasers. 2. Some of the Defendants were the decree-holders, and some were persons who came in under them; but all the Defendants who are in that position may for the purpose of this judgment be classed under the head of the decree-holders. Others of the Defendants were not decree-holders, but merely purchasers under the execution, and strangers to the decree upon which the execution issued. The circumstances are peculiar. The Plaintiffs in the suit in which the execution was issued sued the present Appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad to recover certain landed property situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the land which was situate within his jurisdiction, and the mesne profits in respect of that land. But before the judgment of the Privy Council, and before the decree of the High Court, which reversed a part of the original judgment of the Subordinate Judge, the Plaintiffs in that suit, who are now some of the Defendants, executed their decree, and several sales took place under that execution. Under the first sale a certain amount was realised which would have been sufficient to cover the amount finally allowed by the decree of the High Court upon appeal. A second sale took place under which one of the Defendants, Ashgar Ali, purchased bond fide, he not being a party to the original decree. 3. The Plaintiff brought his suit on the 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty of the value of Rs. 21,450 after dispossession of the Defendants. 6. Amongst other issues, one was whether the auction sale and the purchase having been made bond fide, could be invalidated or set aside by the modification of the decree, and whether limitation law barred the claim. 7. It appears to their Lordships that there is a great distinction between the decree-holders who came in and purchased under their own decree, which was afterwards reversed on appeal, and the bond fide purchasers who came in and bought at the sale in execution of the decree to which they were no parties, and at a time when that decree was a valid decree, and when the order for the sale was a valid order. 8. A great distinction has been made between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore he held that the suit was not barred, but that the Plaintiff had a right to recover, not only as against the decree-holders, but as against the bond fide purchasers, who were no parties to the decree under which they purchased, and he decreed the Plaintiff's suit. The Defendant Ashgar Ali and the three added Defendants, none of whom was a party to the decree in execution of which the sales were effected, appealed to the High Court. 10. When the case came before the High Court they reversed that decision. They passed two decrees, one as regards the three Appellants who were the added Defendants, and the other as against Ashgar Ali; but they are both in similar words. They said, Both appeals must be decreed with costs, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
