Thereafter Ramchandar was ejected from his exproprietary tenancy sometime in 1936 and the lands came into possession of the appellant.
the possession of the appellant.
This was followed by an application by the appellant for leave to appeal to this Court and a certificate was granted by the High Court.
In companysequence, the appellant became the owner of the entire village subject to the mortgage of the respondents on Annas /5/4 share therein.
The main companytention of the appellant before us is that the mortgage deed of 1920 which is the basis of the title of the respondents did number include the sir plots in the possession of, Ramchandar number the plots of Ramchandars mother.
On July 27, 1932, the respondents sued Ramchandar on the basis of their mortgage deed and a preliminary decree for sale was passed in March, 1937.
Achhru Ram, A. R. Chaubey and Naunit Lal for the respondents.
Their case was that these lands were accession to the mortgage in their favour and they were therefore entitled to a proper share in them.
Thereafter, the appellant brought a suit against Ramchandar who was lambardar of the village for profits, in which 9, decree was passed against Ramchandar.
They also claimed a share in other lands which came into the possession of the appellant as lambardar.
Further the appellant as a lambardar came into possession of certain other lands by surrender or otherwise.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated June 28, 1954, of the former Nagpur High Court, in First Appeal No.
The suit was resisted by the appellant and his companytention was that the respondents had purchased specific khudkashat and chhotaghas plots and that they therefore companyld number be allowed anything more than what was mentioned in the decree and the sale certificate which were the basis of their title.
This brings us to a companysideration of the mortgage in favour of the respondents.
Further, the sale certificate also did number include these plots, though some other plots were mentioned therein.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Purshottam Trikamdas, S. T. Khirwadkar and I. N. Shroff for the appellant.
It appears that Ramchandar was ejected from these lands also and they came into, the possession of the appellant.
The appellant was also a lambardar.
Nor were these plots included in the suit which was brought by the respondents on the basis of the mortgage deed.
So by the year 1940 the respondents were the owners of Annas /5/4 share in the village while the appellant was the owner of Annas /10/8 share.
That is how the matter has companye up before us.
Further, they were allowed one third share in the lands held by the mother of Ramchandar and also in certain other lands which came into the possession of the appellant as lambardar subject to payment of certain amounts.
To this suit the appellant was also a party.
Ramchandar Jat held sir land in certain khasras with a total area of 252 49 acres.
This claim was resisted by the appellant before the Sub Divisional Officer.
On the sale of Ramchandars share to the appellant, Ramchandar became an ex proprietary tenant of his sir land.
On August 27, 1926, the defendant appellant purchased Annas /5/4 share belonging to the other share holders in the village.
Ramchandar executed a simple mortgage deed on July 27, 1920, in favour of Seth Ram Jiwan and two.
The respondents filed a suit for partition before the Sub Divisional Officer, Hard, in 1942.
As the specific lands with respect to which the respondents claimed a declaration in this suit were number mentioned in the sale certificate, they were number entitled to any share in them.
The appeal was allowed so far as the respondents claim to one half share in the sir plots held by Ramchandar was companycerned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
326/10/8 together with khudkashat, chhotaghas, big shrubs, abadi, gair abadi, cultivated and that lying vacant, and the rights and privileges appertaining to water, forests, chahat, gardens, and right of cultivation, malguzari and trees of every kind whether giving fruits or numberfruits and prohibited and unprohibited wood with entire rights and prvileges appertaining to the village.
107 of 1946.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Nagpur High Court.
The plaintiffs.
272 of 1956.
On October 20, 1943, the Sub Divisional Officer passed an order which in effect rejected the companytention of the respondents and accepted the plea of the appellant.
Thereupon the respondents filed the present suit for a declaration in the civil companyrt in 1944 claiming that they were entitled to a proportionate share in the lands specified in the plaint.
respondents are the representatives of the mortgagees.
The preliminary decree was followed by a final decree and thereafter the property was put to sale and was purchased by the respondents on March 1, 1940.
Consequently, the respondents went up in appeal to the High Court.
February 22.
Therefore, the respondents were number entitled to these plots as accession to the mortgage.
One Ramchandar Jat originally owned Annas 10/8 share in Mauza Tamalawadi while the rest belonged to others.
The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
minors Ram Narain and Radhey Sham.
A large number of issues were framed by the trial companyrt, which decreed a part of the claim put forward by the respondents but dismissed the rest.
In that suit they claimed half share in the lands of Ramchandar and his mother which came into.
There were certain other lands which were numberinally recorded as Muafi Khairati in the name of Ramchandars mother but were actually in the possession of Ramchandar.
In execution of that decree the appellant purchased the entire Annas /10/8 share of Ramchandar in the village about the year 1932.
This sale was companyfirmed on April 12, 1940, and a sale certificate was granted to the respondents.
