The respondents, being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional District Judge, filed two revision petitions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
The respondents filed objections under section 12 of the Consolidation Act, as it stood at the relevant time in November, 1956.
Out of the companysideration of Rs.3,150, Sona Devi was paid only Rs.1,300 in cash before the Sub Registrar and the balance of the companysideration money was kept in deposit with the purchasers for payment under three usufructuary mortgage deeds executed by Kurey in favour of some of his creditors.
Both the parties preferred appeals against the said judgment and decree of the learned Munsif.
Both the appeals preferred by the appellants were, accordingly, allowed.
273 274 of 1972 From the Judgment and order dated 25.8.1971 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Revn.
Both the appellants and the respondents Nos.
Hence these two appeals by special leave.
The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif against the appellants.
The learned Munsif by his judgment dated January 18, 1953 decreed the suit.
The learned Arbitrator came to the findings that Sona Devi had only a life interest in the disputed land, that the sale deed executed by her on December 21, 1935 was neither for legal necessity number for the benefit of the estate of her deceased father, that the transfer of the disputed land by the said sale deed was number binding on the respondents, the sons of Sona Devi, and that, accordingly, the said respondents were entitled to recover possession of the disputed land purported to have been transferred by the said sale deed.
In view of section S of the companysolidation Act, all further proceedings of the said appeals were stayed.
During the pendency of the appeals, village Daha, in which the disputed land is situated, was numberified for companysolidation operations under the Consolidation Act.
Upon the said findings, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, and also the Award of the learned Arbitrator.
She died in 1944 leaving behind her the said respondents who were all minors at the time of her death.
The appellants filed two petitions of objection to the Award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act which were dismissed by the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, by his order dated November 8, 1967.
In the companysolidation proceedings that were started in the village, the names of the appellants were recorded in the revenue papers as bhumi in respect of the disputed land.
3 to 5, the sons of Sona Devi, filed a suit being suit number 1503 of 1950 in the Court of the Munsif, Meerut against the appellants and others for a declaration that Sona Devi had only a life interest in the zamindari property purported to have been transferred by her by the sale deed dated December 21, 1935, and that the transfer number having been supported by any legal necessity, was number binding upon the respondents.
3 to 5 filed appeals against the decree, but in view of section 5 of the Consolidation Act, all further proceedings of the said appeals were stayed.
By a registered deed of sale dated December 21, 1935, Sona Devi sold the zamindari property to one Hoshiara, the predecessor in interest of the appellants, and also to one Abhey Ram.
3, 4 and 5 were born to her.
The learned Judge, as aforesaid, set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Meerut, and restored that of the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, and also the Award of the learned Arbitrator.
The respondents also prayed for recovery of possession of the property and for mesne profits.
On his death, the zamindari property devolved upon his daughter, Sona Devi.
The learned Additional District Judge took the view that as the sons of Abhey Ram, who was also one of the transferees under the said sale deed dated December 21, 1935, were number made parties in the proceedings, the reference to the Arbitrator was illegal and the Award made by him was invalid.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
As the objections raised questions of title regarding the disputed land, the Consolidation officer referred the matter under sub section 4 of section 12 to the statutory Arbitrator.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing the petitions of objection, the appellants filed two appeals to the Additional District Judge, Meerut, under section 39 of the Arbitration Act.
Thereafter, the companysolidation proceedings were started and the present appeals arise out of such proceedings.
In view of the above findings, the learned Arbitrator made an Award in favour of the respondents.
P. Goel, Rajesh and R.A. Gupta for the Appellants.
Sona Devi had numberson when she executed the sale deed, but subsequently three sons, namely, the respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. These two appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
One Kurey was the owner of the zamindari property in Khewat Nos.
P. Rana, P.K. Pillai for the Respondents.
23 and 34 and also in Khewat No.
2, companyprising the disputed plots of land in village Daha.
1354 and 1355 of 1969.
By the said judgment the learned judge set aside the order of the District Judge, Meerut, passed by him on appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, upholding the order of the First Civil Judge, Meerut, and the Award of the Arbitrator made under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act.
