1 paid a sum of Rs.
1, while admitting the exception of the sale deed dated.
Pursuant to this agreement of sale, Plaintiff No.
Abdulkarim Defendant No.
Hakimunnissa was only his benamidar.
Accordingly 1, the executant, have held out full assurance and satisfaction to the claimant and her husband in respect thereof.
Bibi Hazra Defendant No.
20,000/ .
said news became ready and prepared to purchase the land and the house aforesaid.
From the judgment and Decree dated the 31st October, 1962 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No.
2, for payment of the mortgage debts of Defendant No.
2 got this house mutuated in the Municipal records in her favour.
Despite the sale, defendants Nos, 1 to 3, acting in companylusion, companytinued to be illegal possession of the house.
25 5 1951, pleaded that it was without companysideration.
This companytention does number appear to be tenable.
10,209 4 0, by installments to Defendant No.
4300/ under the sale deed, dated 10th May 1941 Ex.
216, Ward III of Samastipur Municipality.
The husband of the claimant and the claimant get this.
4,300/ .
The said tenant on receiving the.
3 , husband of Mst.
1 for a companysideration of Rs.
D/1 from this Motlib.
619 of 1958.
S. Desai and R. C. Pra, for the appellant.
M. Singhvi, U.P. Singh and A. T. Patra, for respondent No.
It was alleged that Abdul Karim Def.
3, Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CiVil Appeal No.
216, per registered mortgage bond, dated 13 9 1940, from one Sh.
Thereafter Plaintiff No.
1 , in order to clear the mortgage dues and for meeting other necessities, agreed to sell the house to Plaintiff No.
It is significant to numbere that Abdul Karim Defendant No 1 had signed this deed as an attesting witness.
Another sum of Rs.
1 had out of his own funds purchased this house in the name of his wife Mst.
Defendant No.
2,990 12 0 was left with Plaintiff No.
The suit was registered by Bibi Hazra, Defendant No.
The plaintiffs appellants instituted a suit on 30 6 1956, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Samastipur for a declaration of title and possession in respect of a pucca house in Plot No.
He however, asserted that the house had been purchased by him, and that Mst.
1, the executant finalised the negotiation for sale of the said house, with the said tenant and fixed the companysideration money at Rs.
D/1 and also the companynected recitals in the sale deed C 1 II dated 1st April, 1942.
deed of sale executed having company fidence in and reliance on the, assurance given by me, the executant, without making enquiry about encumbrance and defect in title and without seeing the index.
In the deed Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the appellate judgment and decree, dated the 31st October, 1962, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Hakimunnissa by a registered sale deed dated 10 5 1941, from one Abdul Motilib.
1759 of 1967.
After the purchase, Defendant No.1, who was in possession of the house, executed two mortgage deeds, date 6 1 1948 and 28 7 1948, in favour of his son in law, Abdul Latif Defendent No.
6,800/ , the balance of the price, was paid in cash to the vendor at the time of the registration of the sale deed on 25 5 1951.
Abdul Motlib, and later on she had purchased that plot, including the house, for Rs.
In the latter deed, Hakimunnissa inter alia stated that she had previously taken in mortagage plot No.
