1. The plaintiffs to this suit were purchasers of certain plots in a village in the Gorakhpur district. At the time of purchase they obtained the equity of redemption only over the plots now in dispute. The plots had been mortgaged with possession to two persons called Prabhakar defendant-appellant No. 2 and Rajbali deceased, the father of Ram Niwas Misir defendant-appellant No. 4. In 1912 the plaintiffs sued to redeem the plots over which they had purchased the equity of redemption. Rajbali having died and being represented only by Ram Niwas the mortgagees sued were Prabhakar and Ram Niwas. The matter was decided amicably under a compromise and a decree was drawn up on the 11th March, 1913, declaring the mortgage redeemed and assigning the plots in question to the plaintiffs. This decree was against Prabhakar and Ram Niwas. The plaintiffs obtained physical possession over these plots and cultivated them.
2. Subsequently Prabhakar and Ram Niwas with Bhagwati Prasad and Radhakant interfered with their possession by action taken over the standing crops. They undoubtedly based this interference upon an entry in the village papers which seems to show that they had some title to the plots in question.
3. The preceding facts have been found by the lower appellate Court. The following findings must be emphasised. After the decree of 1913 the plaintiffs, were in possession of these plots. The plaintiffs were in separate and exclusive possession of these plots by cultivating them. The defendants dispossessed them. The possession subsequently passed under an order of the Criminal Court to the police as a breach of peace was apprehended. The lower appellate Court has given the plaintiffs-respondents a decree for physical possession over these plots. This decree is attacked in appeal on two grounds. It is attacked on the ground that the decree of the 11th March, 1913, is not good as giving title to the plaintiffs.
4. The argument here is that the predecessors-in-interest of all the present defendants-appellants were interested in the matter and that the defendants-appellants 1 and 3 were no parties to the decree. There is no force in this plea. The mortgagees were Prabhakar defendant-appellant No. 2 and the father of Ram Niwas. The mortgagors were the plaintiffs vendors. The decree had only to be redeemed as against the mortgagees.
5. The next point taken was that the compromise was signed only by Prabhakar and not by Ram Niwas. I have searched the record and do not find that the compromise is on it or that the compromise was ever proved. The suggestion is apparently that if Ram Niwas did not sign the compromise it was signed by Prabhakar on his behalf. There cannot be the slightest doubt as to the fact that the decree was binding against both of them.
6. Another point argued here was to the effect that Ram Niwas was a minor. He clearly was not a minor at the time a decree was passed though he apparently was described as a minor in the plaint. But he is described as a major in the decree. Apart from that, from the present pleadings it appears that Ram Niwas was 30 years old in 1921 which would make him a major in 1912. The redemption was a good redemption and the plaintiffs had title to the plots.
7. The next point taken is that they should not have been granted a decree for physical possession because they and the defendants are zamindars in the property. The learned Counsel has quoted in support of his argument the decision in Bisheshar Singh v. Hanuman Singh A.I.R. 1922 All. 34 and Sarbjit Singh v. Rajkumar Rai A.I.R. 1922 All. 162. The head note in the first decision might be a little clearer. All that these decisions lay down is that when co-sharers or tenants-in-common are jointly in cultivation on a particular area the ouster of one by the other entitles the party ousted to a decree for joint possession. The decisions further lay down that when such a co-tenant intrudes upon joint land the remedy of the persons intruded against is to obtain a decree for joint possession, but nowhere do these decisions or any other lay down that when a co-sharer in a village has rightfully acquired land as his khudkasht and another co-sharer forcibly dispossesses him the Court should do otherwise than restore the man forcibly dispossessed to physical possession.
8. Here the plaintiffs were in separate physical possession of the plots in question and were dispossessed illegally by the defendants. The lower appellate Court was obviously right in giving the plaintiffs a decree for physical possession.
9. This decision disposes of all the points argued before me. There were other grounds of appeal but they were abandoned. I dismiss this appeal with costs on the higher scale.