mentary evidence, while, on the other hand, the defendants, Bukhut Mull and Birj Lall, have filed only a copy of the decree of December 1848. There is nothing therefore to show that Reid did not borrow the money for the purposes specified by the mortgagees; and unless the plaintiff can refute that assertion, and can make it appear that Reid and the mortgagees acted in collusion to the detriment of the plaintiff's interest, the plaintiff is legally bound by the act of his guardian. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Case No. 32 of 1850.

(Regular appeal from the decision of Moulvee Abdool Azeez, Principal Sudder Ameen of Goruckpore, dated 23rd November 1839.

MUSSUMAT BUTASEE, (WIDOW OF RAM DASS), AND BABOO LUCHMUN DASS, (Plaintiffs), Appellants,

versus

MUSSUMAT MOHUMDEE JAN, MUNOO LALL AND NUBEE BUKSH, (Defendants), Respondents.

THIS suit has been brought for the possession of mouzah Dehghat and four other lakhiraj mouzahs under a mortgage deed of the 5th November 1836, executed by Zeenut Beebee and Nubee Buksh, widow and heir of Mohumed Buksh, for a debt of Rs. 7,700.

After details of the particulars of the mortgage, the plaint proceeds to state that Zeenut Beebee evaded its performance, and lodged a complaint in the Magistrate's Court denying its execution. The charge was thrown out, and Zeenut Beebee afterwards executed a written acknowledgment of the transaction, and gave possession of the property pledged, which was held by the mortgagee for two years. Zeenut Beebee afterwards induced Mohumdee Jân to institute a collusive suit for a thirteen-anna share in the mouzahs, which was decreed, and plaintiffs were dispossessed. The share of Zeenut Beebee remaining was afterwards sold in satisfaction of the costs of suit, and purchased by Munoo Lall, who, with Mohumdee Jân and Nubee Buksh, for themselves and as heirs of Zeenut Beebee, are made defendants in the suit.

Mussumat Mohumdee Jân made answer, denying the fact of her heirship to Zeenut Beebee, together with the mortgage deed, and plaintiff's statement of her collusion with Zeenut Beebee,

and pleaded that she had succeeded to her share of the property by right of inheritance. Munoo Lall, purchaser of Zeenut Beebee's interests, denied the mortgage transaction and deed. Nubee Buksh did not appear.

The Principal Sudder Ameen rejected both the mortgage deed and ikrarnamah, and dismissed the suit. He observed that the mortgage deed did not bear any signature of Zeenut Beebee, and that the seals of the two documents did not correspond; that Zeenut Beebee, although she was at Goruckpore at the time, and had attended at Court on another occasion to attest a vakalutnamah, did not attend in person at the registry of the deed, and that no mookhteearnamah was forthcoming, authorizing Hyder Buksh, the person, who was said to have been present in her behalf, to act for her. It further appeared from the evidence that, on a complaint being lodged by Zeenut Beebee in the Magistrate's Court in the following year, charging the parties concerned in the registry of the deed with forgery and fraud, Hyder Buksh and his son Nubee Buksh absconded, and that Hyder Buksh's appearance in the registry transaction was in itself matter of suspicion, he being son of one Sheikh Chyn, who had shortly before been cast in a suit for the property, which had been long pending between him and Mohumed Buksh, husband of Zeenut Beebee, and Mohumdee Jân and Zeenut Beebee, heirs of Mohumed Buksh. Plaintiff's alleged that the debt was incurred for advance of funds for the prosecution of the suit; but if the statement were true, and the mortgage transaction genuine, Mohumdee Jân would have been a party to it, rather than a grandson of their adversary. With regard to the evidence, the Principal Sudder Ameen remarked that the credit of the two marginal witnesses to the mortgage deed was impaired by direct contradictions on a material point between their present depositions and a statement made by them in the Criminal Court in 1837. On that occasion, they did not deny that they were in the plaintiff's service, whereas they now depose that they were at that time in the employ of Zeenut Beebee, and their evidence was otherwise unsatisfactory. The evidence of the third witness carried no weight with it. The ikrarnamah remained to be considered. It had not been registered, nor was any mention made of it at the time, and the evidence of the two marginal witnesses was of no value, their testimony having been repeatedly rejected in other cases in which they had appeared.

From this decision, the plaintiffs appeal; but I see no reason to dissent from the judgment. The claim is brought against Mussumat Mohumdee Jân, on the alleged fact of the decree obtained by her in her suit with Zeenut Beebee having been a

collusive one, but of this no proof has been adduced, and the circumstances are wholly opposed to such a presumption, neither is her heirship, as the representative of the interests of Zeenut Beebee in the share purchased by Munoo Lall, in any way established. She must therefore be exempted from the claim. With regard to the share now held by Munoo Lall, some of the reasons in the judgment have been impugned by the appellants, who have endeavored to show, from their evidence, that so far from the previous litigation having bred lasting enmity between the members of the family, Zeenut Beebee had, in the year previous to the mortgage, associated Nubee Buksh with herself in her affairs; but if the interests of Nubee Buksh were identical with those of Zeenut Beebee at the time, and the transaction were a genuine one, they fail to explain why Nubee Buksh absconded with his father Hyder Buksh when charged by Zeenut Beebee with fraud. The Principal Sudder Ameen has entered fully into the evidence, and his conclusions from it appear just. Much suspicion attaches to the case, but the interests of Zeenut Beebee in the property have determined, and a full disclosure of the real facts could not be expected. It is sufficient that the documents are not safe, and that the evidence brought to support them is untrustworthy.

The decision is confirmed with costs. The appellants are chargeable with vakeel's fees of both parties of the respondents.

The 24th June, 1851.

Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge.

CASE No. 38 OF 1851.

Regular appeal from the decision of S. S.
Brown, Esq., Judge of Agra, dated 27th
December 1850.

JOWAHIR SINGH, (Defendant), Appellant,

versus

CHEETUR MULL AND HUR BUKSH, (Plaintiffs), Respondents. THIS case is reported at pages 96 to 98 of the printed decisions for Zillah Agra, for the month of December last, and as the circumstances are therein fully detailed, it is unnecessary to say any thing in addition thereto; I shall therefore confine myself to recording my reasons for upholding the decision of the Zillah Court.

From several circumstances specified in the printed report of the case, and developed in the proceedings, I was at first disposed to question the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Judge, as to the prior execution and genuineness of the plain

tiffs' deed of sale. The addition of the name of a fifth witness to the deed, which was not in the copy originally drawn up by the Qazie, the palpable falsity of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, to prove that the defendant, Jowahir Singh, fraudulently prepared his own deed of sale, in the presence of strangers, in the public road, and in broad day-light, the denial of all knowledge of the plaintiffs' deed of sale by the chief witness thereto, Nund Lall, the neglect of the plaintiffs to have the transfer recorded in the Collector's Office, were all facts calculated to excite the suspicion that the plaintiff's deed of sale had been fraudulently antedated, with the view of setting aside that held by the appellant Jowahir Singh. This indeed is positively asserted by the appellant, in his juwabdawee, and to clear up this doubt, I sent for the original Qazie's book, containing the copy of the plaintiff's deed of sale, and the monthly abstract statement of deeds attested and registered, which the Qazies, according to the Circular Order of the 23rd November 1838, are bound to forward to the Judge. On a careful inspection of these documents (the appearance of which is open to no suspicion) I am perfectly satisfied that the plaintiffs' deed of sale was executed and registered by the Qazie, on the date which it bears, and that the statement of the defendant, as to its having been prepared at a date subsequent to that of his own deed, on an old sheet of stamp paper, is without foundation. This fact then, which is the point at issue between the parties, having been satisfactorily cleared up, I have no hesitation in affirming the decision of the Judge, and I dismiss the appeal, with costs.

The 24th June, 1851.

Present A. W. BEGBIE, Judge.

CASE NO. 39 OF 1851.

{

Regular appeal from the decision of S. S. Brown, Esq., Judge of Agra, dated 27th December 1850.

JOWAHIR SINGH, (Plaintiff), Appellant,

versus

JOGUL KISHORE AND OTHERS, (Defendants), Respondents. SEE page 99 of the printed decisions, for Zillah Agra, for the month of December last.

The decision of this suit is necessarily dependent on the fate of cases Nos. 38 and 40, the suits being brought by Jowahir Singh, as the purchaser of the property, to redeem the mortgage

of 11 biswahs therein held by the respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the foregoing two cases. As I have affirmed the decisions of the Zillah Judge, disallowing the appellant's title as purchaser, he, of course, has no right to redeem the property. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The 24th June, 1851.

Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge.

CASE No. 40 or 1851.

Regular appeal from the decision of S. S. Brown, Esq., Judge of Agra, dated 27th December 1850.

JOWAHIR SINGH, (Defendant), Appellant,

versus

JOGUL KISHORE AND NUND KISHORE, (Plaintiffs),

Respondents.

SEE page 99 of the printed decisions for Zillah Agra, for the month of December last.

The case is similar in all its details to case No. 38, this day disposed of, the only difference being, that the plaintiffs are distinct from those in No. 38, and hold a deed of sale for five biswahs of the same village instead of ten, the defendant, Jowahir Singh, holding a deed of sale for the whole fifteen biswahs. For the reasons recorded in the previous case, I dismiss this appeal also.

The 24th June, 1851.
Present: A. W. BEGBIE, Judge.

CASE No. 41 OF 1851.

Regular appeal from the decision of S. S. Brown, Esq., Judge of Agra, dated 27th December 1850.

JOWAHIR SINGH, (Plaintiff), Appellant,

versus

HUR BUKSH AND CHEETUR MULL, (Defendants), Respondents.

SEE page 100 of the printed decisions for Zillah Agra, for the month of December last.

This case is similar to case No. 39, immediately preceding the suit, being to redeem the mortgage of 3 biswahs out of the 15 biswahs, which form the original subject of dispute. I observe an error in reporting this case in the Zillah decision; Hur Buksh