TMI Blog1924 (7) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dant appeals. 4. The facts raising such questions in the suit as remain for their Lordships' consideration may be compendiously stated. 5. The respondents have been found to be, as they alleged they were, the reversionary heirs of one Manohar Ojha who died without issue in 1856. At his death he was entitled as part of his estate to both properties in suit. In Pachrokhia, the appellant, who is the present Maharaja of Dumraon, was also interested as the owner of an eight annas share. 6. Manohar Ojha left three childless widows surviving him. Oudha Koer was the last survivor of the three. She died in 1914. Thereupon, the succession to the estate of Manohar Ojha opened to the respondents as his reversionary heirs. After Oudha Koer& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in possession, and he so remained at the death of Oudha Koer in 1914. 10. Such was the title to this property set up by the appellant in the suit. 11. Their Lordships will deal separately with his claim to the grove. 12. Now, so far, the question as to Pachrokhia, between the respondents as reversionary heirs of Manohar Ojha and the appellant, would depend, primarily at least, upon the question whether the mortgage made by Oudha Koer, a Hindu widow, in favour of Kishan Prasad was for legal necessity so as to be binding on the estate of Manohar Ojha. And this issue was found in favour of the respondents by the Subordinate Judge in the present suit. In the High Court, however, the decision against the appellant was based upon anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hips' judgment that decree obtained by Dhanai as against the widow and Kishan Prasad is binding as between the parties to the present suit. No Court in India can now, as the Board think, go behind it, and, as it was therein held that the transfer to Kishan Prasad was not binding on the estate after the death of the widow, the respondents as the reversionary heirs are now in their Lordships' judgment, by virtue of that decree, entitled to possession. 16. The Board agrees with the High Court in thinking that this result necessarily flows from the judgment of their Lordships in Venkatanarayana Pillai v. Subbammal (1915) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 406, 411 : L.R. 42 I.A. 125, 129 delivered by Mr. Ameer Ali. After pointing out that the Indian law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... describe in relation to this property the suit of Dhanai Ojha which eventuated in the decree of the 21st of June, 1904. That decree is binding on the appellant as the successor in interest of Kishan Prasad, and of the benefit of it the respondents are now possessed as the heirs of Manohar Ojha in the event entitled to the reversion. 19. To the present case the application of this principle is obviously and eminently salutary. It would be pessimiexempli that the appellant, whose predecessor in interest failed on the same issue and was content to accept the adverse judgment against him, should be held entitled years afterwards, when it might be, much of the relevant evidence was no longer available, to raise the same issue all over again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
