Judgement

The facts which gave rise to this appeal were these —

[@ page M.I.A. 606] The Respondent and Appellant had both obtained separate Decrees in respect of arrears of rent due to them respectively by one Gourpershad, deceased. They had both taken out execution of their Decrees after his death, and the Appellant had, at an execution sale, purchased the lands in dispute, against which the "Respondent in this suit sought to execute his Decree, notwithstanding the sale to the Appellant, on the ground that the Appellant had acquired, by his purchase, not the interest of the heir, Hurpersad, the son of Gourpershad, but only the interest of his Widow, Chooharoo Kooer, which really was nothing, and that, therefore, Respondent was entitled to sell in execution of his Decree, the interest of the heir.

It appeared, that on the 11th of November, 1858, the Respondent obtained a Decree against Gourpershad for Rs. 14,636 for arrears of rent, which Decree was affirmed by the Sudder Dewanny

14 M.I.A. 605 ( 1871- 1872) General Manager v. Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh 97

Court in 1861. Gourpershad died about that time.

In the year 1862, the then Manager of the Durbhunga Raj brought a suit under Act, No. X of 1859, against Chooharoo Kooer, as the Mother and Guardian of Hurpersad, then a Minor, to recover Rs. 11,820. 15a. 7p. for arrears of rent due from the deceased Gourpershad, in respect of lands held by him of the Durbhunga Raj.

Chooharoo Kooer by her answer alleged, that Hurpersad had no interest in his Fathers estate, as he had been adopted into another family, whose estate he had come into possession of, and that she was in possession of her Husbands estate.

An issue having been raised on this point, the Collector held, that Hurpersad was exempted from liability as he had been adopted in another family, [@ page M.I.A. 607] and finding the amount of rent to have been due from Gourpershad to the Plaintiff (to whose position and rights the Appellant succeeded) decreed him the sum of Rs. 12,868. 1a. 10p.

The Respondent having sought execution of his Decree against the Widow and Son of Gourpershad, Hurpersad objected to hi3 being made personally liable, on the ground that no estate of his Father had come to him, and that all had come to the possession of Chooharoo Kooer, and the Principal Sudder Ameen of Tirhoot, on the 16th of May, 1863, sustained that objection.

As neither of the Decree-holders could obtain satisfaction of their Decrees, the then Manager of the Durbhunga Raj, on the 13th of April, 1865, instituted a suit in the Court of the Principal Sudder Ameen of Tirhoot against Hurpershad, as Son and heir, and Chooharoo Kooer, as Widow of the deceased Gourpershad, and another, to establish his right to execute his rent Decree against the properties mentioned in the plaint; and the Plaintiff sought to have it established that the properties against which he sought to execute his rent Decree formed part of the estate of Gourpershad, and were liable to satisfy that Decree.

The Principal Sudder Ameen found that the properties in question had in fact come to Gourpershad by inheritance, and after his death had devolved from him on Hurpersad ; that Chooharoo Kooer, by Mithila law, had no interest in them, and ordered that the estates in suit, being considered as left by Gourpershad, the judgment-Debtor, be put to sale according to the last Order contained in the decision, under Act, No. X of 1859, dated the 24th November, 1862, in [@ page M.I.A. 608] satisfaction of the Decree obtained by the Plaintiff. This Decree was affirmed by the High Court (See 7 W.R, p. 500.).

On the 19th of June, 1867, the Appellant applied to the Collector for execution of his Decree of the £4th of November, 1862, against the properties which had been decided by the Principal Sudder Ameen, in his judgment, to have formed part of the estate of Gourpershad; and the Collector attached and notified the sale of the properties in execution of the Appellants rent Decree,