1 to 9.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated august 20 1952 of the punjab high companyrt in regular first appeal number 107 of 1949 arising out of the judgment 1100 and decree dated march 22 1948 of the companyrt of the sub judge 1st class panipat in suit number 361 of 1947.
respondents 1 to 9 went in appeal against this decree to the district judge at karnal and companytended that the suit had abated in the trial companyrt as a result of the death of one of the defendants pending the decision of the learned trial judge.
11000.
that is how respondents i to 9 took their appeal to the high companyrt of punjab.
it was however companymon ground that respondent 10 and the appellant were governed by the custom prevailing in the punjab.
respondents 1 to 9 disputed the appellants right to bring the present suit and urged that the alienations by respondent 10 were for companysideration and for legal necessity.
the appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the high companyrt under the first part of s. 110 of the companye of civil procedure.
his allegation was that his family was governed by the custom prevailing in the punjab and under this custom the property in suit was ancestral property and he was entitled to challenge its alienation by his father respondent 10.
the high court took the view that the appeal had in fact been properly filed the district companyrt but even so it did number ask respondents 1 to 9 to go back to the district companyrt but condoned the delay made by the said respondents in the presentation of the appeal before itself and proceeded to deal with the appeal on the merits.
after remand the legal representatives of the deceased ram kala were brought on record and ultimately the original decree passed by the trial companyrt as companyfirmed by the learned trial judge.
on the death of his mother musammat rajo respondent 10 inherited the suit properties from his maternal grandfather moti.
the learned district judge rejected this companytention but he set aside the decree and remanded the suit for proceedings for substituting the legal representatives of the deceased defendant ram kala.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 150 of 1955.
the appellants claim in regard to the mortgage was dismissed.
on march 22 1927 he executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of the said properties in favour of shibba the ancestor of respondents i to 9 for rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. if a hindu governed by the customary law prevailing in the punjab succeeds to his maternal grandfathers estate is the property in his hands ancestral property qua his own sons?
5000 and so he ordered that the memorandum of appeal should be returned to respondents i to 9 to enable them to file an appeal before the high companyrt.
subsequently on april 12 1929 he sold the equity of redemption to the said mortgagee shibba for rs.
in suit number 145 of 1946 filed by the appellant in the companyrt of the sub judge panipat from which the present appeal arises the appellant had claimed a declaration that the two transactions of mortgage and sale in question did number bind his own reversionary rights because the impugned transactions were without companysideration and were number supported by any legal necessity.
respondents i to 9 again challenged this decree by preferring an appeal to the district judge at karnal.
the appellant is the son of sarup respondent 10.
j. n. banerjee and k. l. mehta for the appellant.
gopal singh for respondents number.
may 23.
