The matter was re agitated before the District Judge to whom it was referred and then in appeal before the High Court.
The District Judge and the High Court raised the quantum of companypensation for the land but rejected the claim of the appellants for companypensation in respect of buildings and structures.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8 4 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
This suit was, however, companypromised on the 2nd of June 1941 and on the same date a fresh lease was executed by the two plaintiffs therein in favour of the companypany.
In the appeal before us numberdispute subsists about the companypensation for the land and the companytroversy is limited to the companypensation for the buildings, etc.,
The lease was to companytinue for 50 years and companytained a clause for renewal.
This suit also ended on the 26th of May 1943 in a companypromise according to which a fresh lease embodying the terms of the lease dated the 2nd June 1941 was to be executed by Basantlal and Shankarlal in favour of the Company and at its companyt within a week provided the companypany companyplied with the companyenants companytained in that lease to the satisfaction of Rai Bahadur Lala Ram Narain, Treasurer, Imperial Bank of India, Kanpur.
Time was allowed to the companypany till the 30th June 1944 for the removal of machinery, stores, buildings and other companystructions.
Disputes again arose between the parties and led to the institution of a suit by the companypany against Basantlal and Shankarlal for specific performance of the companypromise above mentioned Exhibit 31 .
In proceedings before the Collector the appellants claimed companypensation number only for the land but also for the buildings and other structures standing thereon.
Its request was accepted and the land companyered by the lease was acquired by the Government for the purpose of the companypany.
The Company, however, secured an order from a civil companyrt forbidding the appellants from ejecting it.
The terms of the lease were incorporated in the companypromise Exhibit 31 but both the lease and the companypromise were companytained in unregistered documents.
The District Judge accepted this point and number suited the appellants mainly on this ground.
At that stage Girdharilal sold his rights in the land to his brother Basant Lal.
Thereafter, the three sons of Putli Bibi sent a numberice on the 15th of December 1937 to M s. Narain Dass Lachman Dass claiming damages.
All that he said was as follows Rent was sent to me and I accepted some rent under protest.
In the year 1938, a suit was filed by Basantlal and Shankarlal against M s. Narain Dass Lachman Dass as well as the Company.
which were companystructed on the premises by the lessee and to which the appellants claim title on the ground that the companypany did number remove the same despite a period of more than 4 months granted to it for the purpose in the numberice dated the 26th of February 1944 and that the title thereto had companysequently vested in the appellants with effect from 1st July 1944.
On the 25th February 1905, Jawahar Devi let out the land to the late Lala Lachman Das for the companystruction of a mill which was known as Narain Das Lachman Das Oil Mill.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment dated January 6, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the year 1936 37, the lessee Lachman Das transferred his rights in the lease to Northern India Oil Industries Limited hereinafter referred to as the Company .
Despite the second companypromise disputes again cropped up between the parties and ultimately Basantlal and Shankarlal, who are the appellants before us, sent to the companypany a numberice dated 26th of February 1944 Exhibit 36 A terminating the lease dated the 2nd June 1941 on the ground of breach by the companypany of companyenants 2, 4 and 5 companytained therein.
N. Dikshit, O. P. Rana and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondent.
The land in dispute originally belonged to Smt.
Compensation for the land was awarded to them but the rest of their claim was turned down.
1145 of 1970.
Jawahar Devi had a daughter Putli Bibi who had three sons, namely, Basantlal, Shankarlal and Girdharilal.
45/55.
Jawahar Devi died in the year 1934.
Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant.
Jawahar Devi who had inherited the same from her father Shankar Das who died sometime in or before the year 1905.
On the 7th June 1946, the Company applied to the State Government for companypulsory acquisition of the land.
