Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Siaram Das having died, Mahabir was brought on as his legal representative in the execution proceedings. On July 28, 1917, the judgment-creditor obtained an order, confirmed on appeal on May 27, 1918, that the other auction purchasers should re-deposit the purchase monies which they had been allowed to withdraw on undertaking to return them, should the order setting aside the sale be reversed.

9. Two of these auction-purchasers then instituted separate suits, Nos. 477 and 478 of 1918, which were tried together, against Kedar Nath, the present plaintiff as representative of the decree-holder and Mahabir, the present defend ant No. 1, as the Mahanth in possession of the mutt properties, for a declaration that the plaintiffs were not bound to re-deposit the purchase monies or the grounds that the Court-sale was invalid and the Mahanth would not alloy them to take possession of the properties they had purchased. In their Lord ships' opinion it was clearly necessary to decide in these suits the dispute as to the validity of the Court sale between the present plaintiff and defend ant No. 1, then arrayed as co-defendants, for the purpose of giving the plaintiffs appropriate relief. The Mahanth as defendant No. 2 sided with the plaintiffs, and on the appeals to the High Court from the decrees in the plaintiffs favour was represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs.