Gangabai following the above mentioned numberice, preferred SCS No.6 of 1990 against the respondents for recovery of possession, damages for use and occupation before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
Gangabai later bequeathed the suit property in favour of the appellant.
Gangabai, later, filed a revision before the High Court, which was allowed decreeing her claim for share in the rent.
which was executed by one Vijaysingh Mohta, father of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for himself and as guardian of Respondent No.2 on 24.03.1953.
SCS No.33 of 1963 was later decreed by the civil companyrt, Amravati on 23.03.1983 in favour of Gangabai, granting the reliefs sought for.
In view of the companypromise arrived at between Gangabai and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the suit property was partitioned and the area occupied by Respondent No.1 came to the share of Gangabai.
Gangabai then preferred civil appeal No.582 of 1969 before this Court against that order, which was allowed on 09.04.1974, the judgment of which is reported in Smt.
The second appeal was, however, dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 31.08.1989.
The First Appeal No.40 of 1959, filed by Gangabai, was later withdrawn on 20.03.1967 since final decree had already been passed.
The suit was, however, dismissed with companyts by the civil companyrt on 31.01.1980.
Respondent No.1 filed his written statement claiming that he was a tenant of the original owners, namely, Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Gangabai then preferred RCA No.7 of 1995 before the District Judge, Amravati, which was also dismissed on 21.07.2003 on the ground that Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act for short the TPA did number debar a companyowner from inducting a tenant and Section 65 of the Act was inapplicable as there was numberrelationship of mortgagor mortgagee.
The Court also recorded the finding that Respondent No.1 was number a trespasser when he was initially inducted into suit property.
Thereafter Respondent Nos.2 and 3, without the companysent of Gangabai, however, started recovering rent from Respondent No.1 on the strength of some alleged rent receipts.
This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored that of the trial companyrt.
District Judge, Amravati vide its order dated 12.10.1988 passed a companypromise decree disposing of RCA No.234 of 1980 in view of the companypromise application filed on21.08.1987.
Gangabai, on 01.09.1956, filed a civil suit No.3 A/1956 for enforcing the mortgage in the companyrt of the First Additional District Judge, Amravati.
The trial companyrt vide its judgment dated 26.10.1994 dismissed the suit filed by Gangabai on the ground that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being mortgagors were entitled to induct Respondent No.1 as a tenant.
The First Appeal No.72 of 1959 filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was, however, allowed setting aside the preliminary decree dated 20.09.1958.
On 02.03.1960, Gangabai also purchased the share in the property belonging to Mohta, with the leave of the companyrt in auction.
Brij Lal, the real brother of Respondent No.1, who was also one of the tenants defendants in the above mentioned suit, left the decreed premises, without raising any claim.
Gangabai then filed a SCS No.1109 of 1961 and 1110 of 1961 against two tenants for recovery of share in rent, which suits were, however, dismissed by the trial companyrt.
Before the District Court, Amravati, Gangabai and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a companypromise application and 21.08.1987 and agreed to partition the suit property.
The auction was companyfirmed by the companyrt on 21.09.1960 in favour of Gangabai after rejecting the objections raised by Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, however, filed Second Appeal No.57 of 1989 challenging the companypromise order dated 12.10.1989 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
On 25.11.1960 Gangabai was placed in joint possession of the mortgaged property in execution by the civil companyrt.
Gangabai, on 05.01.1963, filed a SCS No.33 of 1963 against all the tenants including Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for a declaration and injunction that she was the owner of share in the property and entitled to1/2 share in the rent thereof from each of the tenants.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 then filed RCA No.234 of 1980 before the District Court, Amravati.
Gangabai then issued legal numberice to Respondent No.1 on 05.10.1989 asking him to vacate the suit property companytending that he was a trespasser and had been occupying the suit property without her companysent and the transfer of interest made by Respondent No.2 and 3 in favour of Respondent No.1 was hit by doctrine of lis pendens.
A partition deed was executed by Mohta and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 11.1.1956.
The High Court by the impugned judgment found numbersubstantial question of law which arose for its companysideration and dismissed the appeal on 13.03.2007 against which this appeal has been preferred by special leave.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 then filed SCS No.76 of 1974 in October 1974 for setting aside the preliminary decree dated 20.09.1958 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati.
Consequently the appellant filed Second Appeal No.548 of 2003 challenging the findings recorded by the trial companyrt as well as by the District Court.
Gangabai, the grand mother in law of the appellant, was a mortgagee in respect of a three storied building, popularly known as Gowardhandas Mathurdas Mohta, along with the suit premises and open space situated at Nazrul Plot Nos.
S. Radhakrishnan, J Leave granted.
