TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1934 (7) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nni in favour of the plaintiffs, dated December 14, 1923, and that it is by no means fit to be attached and sold by auction in execution of decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Benares in case No. 129 of 1923Dulhin Radhe Dulari Kunwar, plaintiff v. Musammat Chhunni and Ors., defendantsLaid at Rs. 7,737-10-0. (b) All the costs of the suit may be charged to defendant No. 1. (c) In addition to or in place of the relief aforesaid any other relief to which the plaintiffs maybe found entitled in the opinion of the Court may be granted to the plaintiffs. 4. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants: BISHAMBHAR PANDA=Mst. CHHUNNI. (died about 1894). (Defendant No. 2.) .. : : Mst. Shiam Sundar. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts: Bishambhar Panda died while the Hindu family was joint, and according to the principle of survivorship Narain Panda, his son, succeeded to and went into possession of his father's property, which is specified in the plaint. Narain died childless on March 26, 1902, his widow having predeceased him, and thereupon his mother Musammat Chhunni went into possession of the said property with the limited interest of a Hindu widow. 6. On September 22, 1910, Musammat Chhunni and Musammat Shiam Sundar executed what purported to be a simple mortgage deed of four houses therein described in favour of Musammat Dulhin to secure the sum of Rs. 2,635-10-0 and interest. 7. It was therein stated that the borrowing was for legal necessity; the greater part of the money being required to pay off a previous mortgage and certain promissory notes. 8. Musammat Dulhin, the first defendant in the present suit, instituted a suit on the said mortgage against Musammat Chhunni and Musammat Shiam Sundar, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in the present suit, and judgment therein was given by the Subordinate Judge of Benares on December 12, 1923. 9. The learned Judge held that the above-mentioned doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appealed against it, and the appeal was still pending, and the said deed therefore was bad and void. 18. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. It appears that on the day before, or on the day on which the Subordinate Judge delivered judgment, Musammat Chhunni died, and on January 16, 1925, the plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code and Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the schedule to the said Code, for a review of the decree and judgment of December 22, 1924. The main ground of the application was that Musammat Chhunni had no more than a life interest in the said property, that on her death the question of the validity of the deed of relinquishment became immaterial, that her life interest vanished with her death, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that the properties in suit belonged to the plaintiffs at the date of the said judgment and were not liable to be sold in execution of the decree held by Musammat Dulhin against Musammat Chhunni and Musammat Shiam Sundar. 19. On November 30, 1925, the Subordinate Judge acceded to this application and reviewed his judgment and decree. The follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Court, Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi and Nameshwar Pratap Sahi were added as parties in her place. The two last-mentioned persons, as already stated, appealed to His Majesty in Council against the above-mentioned judgment and decree of the High Court. 28. One of the grounds of appeal was that the plaintiffs' suit was based on their title under the deed of relinquishment dated December 14, 1923, and should have been dismissed in any event. 29. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that under the provisions of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and of Order XLVII, Rule 1, the. Subordinate Judge had no right to review his judgment and decree on the above-mentioned grounds. 30. As already stated, the appellants do not seem to have insisted upon this point in the Courts in India, although it was included in the memorandum of appeal to the High Court. 31. In spite of this their Lordships are of opinion that they are bound to consider the question which has been clearly raised in the appeal to His Majesty in Council. 32. It is a pure question of law, and no new evidence is necessary to enable their Lordships to dispose of the matter. 33. Section 114 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove-mentioned ground is not one of the grounds specified in Order XLVII, Rule 1(i), and the application for review can only be supported, if at all, by reference to the words " or for any other sufficient reason." 39. These words are of a general character, and apart from authority would seem to leave the sufficiency of the reason to the unfettered discretion of the Court. 40. But there is authority to the contrary, and it has been held that a limited meaning must be put upon the above-mentioned words. 41. In Chajju Ram v. Neki (1922) L.R. 49 I.A. 144 : S.C. 24 Bom. L.R. 1238 it was decided by the Judicial Committee that a Court hearing an application for the review of a decree on appeal had no jurisdiction to order a review because it was of opinion that a different conclusion of law should have been arrived at, and it was held that Rule 1 of Order XLVII must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which review is permitted, and that the words "any other sufficient reason "must be taken as meaning"a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously." See p. 152: of the above-mentioned cited case. 42. In their Lordshi....