Sharma, J.—These are two appeals—one civil second appeal No. 242 of 1949 filed by Bhonrilal and three others and the other No. 243 of 1949 by Narain against the Chief Secretary, Jaipur Government who has now been substituted by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan. During the pendency of appeal No. 242 of 1949 Bhonrilal died and Chandnarain, Shyamal and Hanuman Sahai minor under the guardianship of Chandnarain were substituted in the place. Appeal No. 243 was filed by Narain. Both these appeals arise out of suit No. 119 of Svt. 2002 which was filed by the Chief Secretary of the erstwhile Jaipur State against Narain, Bhonrilal, Surajmal, Parasram, Radha Mohan, Mst. Bhonri, Vijainarain, Ram Sahai Govindnarain and Kishendass. The allegations in the plaint were that a four storeyed Haveli situated in Chowkri Topkhana Desh, Rasta Akran, Mohalla Tikkiwalan in the city of Jaipur mora fully described in the plaint was given to one Srichand for residence in Udak on Mah Sudi 15, Svt. 1808. This Srichand was an ancestor of Vijainarain, Ramsahai and Govindnarain, defendants. Since then, Srichand and his descendants had been in possession of the said Haveli as Atiadar. Deepchand one of the descendants of Srichand died in the life time of his father Gopinath. Mst. Kesar widow of Deepchand made a simple mortgage of a portion of the Haveli in favour of Narain defendant. No.l, on the 19th of November, 1931. This property is shown in clause (a) in para 4 of the plaint. Thereafter she made another simple mortgage of another portion of the Haveli in favour of the some mortgagee on the 5th of May, 1932. This property is shown in clause (b) in para 4 of the plaint. These two properties shall be hereinafter called portions A and B respectively. On 30th of September, 1949, Mst. Kesar died. Some time before her death, defendant No.l Narain took possession of portion A, and Mst. Bhonri, who had been living along wish her mother in portion B, took exclusive possession of this portion after Kesars death. There was another descendant of Srichand by the name of Kasinath. There was a decree for many against his widow Mst. Radha and the portion of the house mentioned in para 7 of the plaint was sold in execution of that decree on 23rdMarch 1904 and was purchased by Ramdass Guru of Kishendass, defendant No. 10. This portion will hereinafter be referred to as portion C. Ramdass sold this portion C to Bhonrilal defendant No.2 and Surajmal defendant No. 3 as per sale-deed dated 10th of September, 1923. All these transfers were illegal as the property given in Udak by the State was in alienable. Mst. Bhonri defendant No. 6 had no right to take possession of the portion occupied by Mst. Kesar The authorities of the erstwhile Jaipur State came to know about these transfers in March, 1940, when the property mortgaged under the mortgage-deed of 5th of May, 1932, was sought to be put up for sale in execution of the decree for foreclosure. The plaintiff averred that all the above alienation were null and void against the State. It was prayed that it be declared that the alienations referred to above were null and void against the State and that possession over the property described in the plaint be delivered to the State.

2. It was admitted on behalf of the defendants Bhonrilal, Surajmal and Radhamohan that the property was given in Udak to Srichand but it was alleged that Srichand had been made absolute owner of the Haven and it was not given to him only for residential purposes. It was further pleaded that the alienations had been validity made and the State authorities were in full knowledge of these authorities were in full knowledge of these alienations. It was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and estoppel. Govindnarain defendant No.9 admitted that the property had been given in Udak to Srichand but pleaded that no cause of action had arisen against him and he was unnecessarily impleaded as defendant. He arised also the pleas of want of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document