devendra naths title depends on whet.her the release by the society was valid and binding on the society or number.
all the leases made by devendranath were after the proceedings companymenced.
by the society ram narain ram and sheonarain ram and after his purchase devendra nath made settlement of the plots to various persons.
why the release was granted by the society was stated in the following words a petition was filed on behalf of the said ram narain ram in the meeting of the members in the presence of all the members of the society for releasing some land from the said mortgage in order to repay the debt.
half and half between them.
the preliminary decree was passed in may 1933 that is to say after the release by the society.
this is one of the points for companysideration in these appeals.
the society filed on april 5 1934 a petit.ion for a mortgage award before the assistant registrar companyoperative societies.
on appeals filed by udholal the decision was reversed.
in execution of the decree the society purchased the two survey number.
after the release of the two survey number.
by mistake of the 2nd asst.
numberfinal decree in this partition suit seems to have been passed.
preliminary decree was passed on april 15 1931 and the final decree on september 10 1932.
on april 27 1931 ram narain ram executed a mortgage of a half share in 27 plots made in the two survey number.
the history of the plots is as follows one laxmi narain was the previous owner of these 2 survey number.
the said ram narain ram shall have right to sell the property to keep the same in whatever ways he likes.
it was held that the plaintiffs had numbertitle to suit lands.
kedar naths purchase was on march 20 1943 but he took the sale benami in the name of dhanesar pandey who was plaint.
the award ordered sale of all .mortgage properties including the half share of ram narain ram in survey number.
when ram narain ram mortgaged the property to raise a loan from the society of which he was a member half share in the plots belonged to him because these plots had fallen in the preliminary decree to.
in auction sale on february 8 1940 obtaining possession on july 5 1941.
ill number 2 in the title suits while kedarnath was plaintiff number 1.
3384 and 3385.
the title of the plaintiffs kedar nath and dhanesar pandey is based on this purchase.
the release stated thus relinquished and released the properties specified below from the debt due to the said ram narain ram to the said society entered in the said mortgage bond in favour of ram narain ram the said property shall number be made liable for any debt of the said society number shall any incumbrance be recovered from the said property.
by the society by a registered deed.
came to the share of ram narain ram and sheonarain ram.
issue mortgage award and ask the c.b.
the proceeding was to get a mortgage award the equivalent of a mortgage decree.
on march 28 1943 the society and the bank went into liquidation.
their next companytention is that.
plaintiffs are purchasers from the mortgagees of the suit lands who had purchased the suit lands in an auction sale in execution of the mortgage decree.
on april 26 1934 that is to say before devendra naths purchase but after attachment by him the society applied to .he registrar companyoperative societies for a mortgage award.
appeals from the judgment and decree dated april 17 1957 of the patna high companyrt in second appeals number.
no mention was made of the earlier release of the survey number.
the final mortgage award was made on may 28 1935.
the said property shall companye in possession of ram narain ram.
however on september 2 1934 .he companyrected iris earlier order thus s1.
their case was that the release was void and inumbererative and number binding on the society.
that preliminary decree was passed on april 15 193 1.
and bring them to sale.
on his death his daughters sons ram narain ram sheonarain ram and gopal ram inherited these survey number.
it is thus that the other two suits get connected with the title suits because in those suits the rent of certain plots from survey number3385 was involved.
the suit survey number.
if the release was valid and binding on the society the society companyld number obtain a decree in respect of these two survey number.
on september 20 1932 sheonarain ram filed a suit for partition against ram narain ram.
simple award was issued instead of mortgage award.
devendranath purchased the right title and interest of ram narain ram on august 13 1934.
two other suits one by kedar nath one of the plaintiffs in the 12 title suits and the other by one udholal were filed for rent for 1335 1337 fasli in respect of some lands companyprised in survey number 3385 of mouza buxar against the tenant ram chhabi lal.
in 1930 the other two brothers sued gopal ram for a partition.
defendants 1 to 3 were the former owners of these suit lands and the other defendants were either purchasers at auction sales in execution of money decrees against the owners or transferees from the auction purchasers.
devendra nath one of the defendants obtained settlement of 3 k 13 d of land out of survey number 3384 from sheonarain ram on june 10 1933 and in execution of a money decree against ram narain ram and sheonarain ram purchased on august 13 1934 the remaining portion of survey number 3384 and survey number 3385.
number 1093 of 1964 respondent number 7 in c.a.
on august 16 1934 a money award was given against ram narain ram and his surety.
d.f.a.
and some other property with buxar trading companyoperative society.
the said society neither has number shall have any objection thereto.
the buxar central companyoperative bank purchased the two survey number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
they are the remaining defendants in the suits and respondents in the various appeals before us.
possession was obtained on july 20 1937.
3384 and 3385.
3 and 4 in c.a.
since the success of the last two appeals depended on whether kedar nath had title or number it is number necessary to refer to them at this stage.
in these appeals plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are common.
the suit of the former was decreed and that of the latter dismissed.
500/ to the society promised by ram narain ram but the payment was number made a companydition of the release.
1091 1103 of 1964.
of rs.
the first two sons were defendants 1 to 2 in the suits and defendant 3 is the son of sheonarain ram.
devendra nath disposed of 3 k 13 d by settling them on his wife and she was one of the defendants in the suits.
therefore litigation in respect of this mortgage remained pending from april 5 1934 to july 20 1937.
read along with s1.
we shall deal with the other eleven appeals first.
the appellants are the original plaintiffs.
under explanation to s. 52 of the transfer of property act the whole of this period denumbered pendency of the proceeding for purposes of application of the doctrine of lis pendens.
appeals by kedar nath to the high companyrt were dismissed on the ground that in the title suits from which eleven appeals were filed it was held by the high companyrt affirming the decision of the companyrts below that kedar nath had numbertitle.
1447 of 1950 etc.
number 4 dated april 4 1933 .
alongwith other properties.
on february 7 1936 and obtained possession o.n july 20 1937.
eleven suits were dismissed.
half share in the property went to gopal ram and the other half jointly to the other two brothers.
he obtained possession on february 27 1935.
on april 20 1933 the society released ram narain rams share in the 27 plots from the mortgage by a registered release deed.
the two brothers divided the two survey number.
kedar nath was held to be the landlord and number udholal.
therefore the mortgage award and the auction sale was binding on ram narain ram and all those who derive title from him.
syed ozair.
these are 13 appeals by certificate against the companymon judgment in second appeal april 17 1957 of the high companyrt of patna.
number 1091 of 1964 respondent number 3 in c.a.
number.
after this mortgage award which had the force of a preliminary decree the society on december 16 1934 resolved that a final mortgage decree be obtained from the assistant registrar and a final decree was obtained and the property brought to sale on february 7 1936 and purchased by the society itself with the permission of the companyrt executing the decree.
and brought them to sale.
1099 1100 and 1101 of 1964 .
he had obtained attachment of the two plots before judgment on april 23 1934.
number1094 of 1964 respondent number 3 in c.a.
in any event the transfers to the defendants were effected during the pendency of the mortgage award proceedings and were affected by the doctrine of lis pendens.
number 1096 of 1964 respondents number.
4 and 5 in a. number 1095 of 1964 and respondent number 4 in c.as.
the suits companycern plots formed out of two survey number.
these two grounds were number accepted by the high companyrt and the companyrts below and it is these two grounds which were urged before us in these appeals.
one dwarikanath had a money decree against the society and he attached the two disputed survey number.
the two rent suits were heard together.
the petition is headed petition for mortgage decree.
number 1092 of 1964 respondent number 4 in c.a.
the appellants had filed 12 title suits for ejectment in the companyrt of the second munsif at buxar.
p. singh and k.c.
the share of his brother sheonarain ram and himself.
one suit was compromised and decreed in terms of the companypromise.
the right title and interest of the society and the bank was sold by the companymon liquidator to kedar nath including the 27 plots made in the two survey number.
there was numberattempt to release this amount from ram narain ram.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah c.j.
b. agarwala and d. goburdhun for the appellant in all the appeals .
admittedly the mortgage award had the force of a mortgage decree.
on september 20 1934 the money award was cancelled and a preliminary mortgage award was passed.
to return the simple award which will be cancelled here.
dua for respondents number.
