1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 30th March 1914. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover certain land on which buildings had been erected by the defendants, the plaintiffs being the reversioners on the death of a Hindu woman whose name was Kumud Kanvini Debi. The plaintiffs are the uncles of the defendants. They now come forward and say that the defendants at the time they acquired the property were of the age of about 18 and 23 years and that they have got no title to the property. The learned Judge of the Court below has found as a fact that there was no legal necessity for the sale It may be that, on a more careful view of the evidence that finding may be challenged. He has also found that the recitals in the kobla were not true. He has further found that the plaintiffs were consenting parties to the sale and that they also by their conduct induced the defendants to spend the whole of their fortune upon the erection of the buildings that have been erected on this portion of the land. The only question that we have got to consider in this case, the findings have not been challenged, is whether the view that the learned Judge took is correct There is one matter that is worthy of consideration and that is this: Although the learned Judge has found that there was no legal necessity, that the recitals in the deed of conveyance were not accurate and that the plaintiffs were consenting parties to the sale he has not found that the defendants knew that these recitals in the deed were not accurate, and, therefore, prima facie, it must be taken that the plaintiffs, being consenting parties to the sale, were parties who induced the defendants to act upon those recitals in the conveyance as being true and accurate statements. Of course, that would be a clear case of estoppel by conduct. No person who is a party to the putting forward of a recital in a deed and induces another person to act on it can afterwards be heard to say that that recital is not accurate.
2. The other portion of the finding is that these uncles actually supervised the construction of the buildings that were erected by the two defendants who were then young men. They watched the building from day to day and from time to time. The money of their nephews was being deliberately laid out on these permanent buildings and they having stood by and seen their nephews so wasting their money, for them now to come to Court and say that those nephews were throwing away their money is not a story that one should readily believe. The case is a novel case and a case that has not ever been set up in a Court of Justice with success, and this is not going to be the first case in which such a statement shall be received by the Court as an accurate statement. I find nothing to suggest that this is so. I think the plaintiffs are bound by their own act. The mere fact that there was at that time a mere spes successionis when they induced their nephews to lay out their money is not a sufficient ground why they should not be bound by the sale; and if such a case is allowed to stand, it would not be giving full effect to the doctrine of estoppel in cases in India. I think this inducing of the defendants to lay out their money was quite sufficient to warrant the learned Judge of the Court below to arrive at the conclusion he came to.
3. Then a question has been raised as to the two smaller pieces of land which, it is said, stand on an altogether different footing. From the findings of the learned Judge, one gathers that these two small pieces of land adjoin the house that has been erected on the other portion of the land. These two pieces of land are probably curtilages and held along with the house. The defendants, according to the view of the learned Judge, parted with the money by which they purchased these pieces of land on similar representations to those on which they purchased the former piece of land on which the buildings stands. It is quite true that as regards this piece of land, the case is not so strong as with respect to the piece of land on which the house has been built, but there is nothing before us to show why we should not give full effect to the view taken by the learned Judge with regard to these two plots of land. To cut off these pieces of land from the other piece of land may cause serious damage to the house that has been erected by the defendants. I agree with the view arrived at by the learned Judge of the Court below. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs--Rs. 200.
4. I agree.