Gopi Krishan, the great grand son of Mohan Lal, claims to have been adopted by Janki Bibi 2nd , with the companysent of Mohan Lal, and as regards the same, a registered document was also prepared.
Janki Bibi Ist daughter of Har Dayal, was married to one Durga Prasad, son of Dina Nath.
Gopi Krishan, respondent number1 was number impleaded as a party.
The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2000 held that the opposite parties were entitled to receive companypensation including enhancement relating to the aforesaid property.
The suit shop was under the tenancy of one Shri Badri Vishal.
Gopi Krishan approached the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, companystituted under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, under Sections 18/30 of the Act, 1894, by filing Misc.
Hence, this appeal.
Vidyawati Rathaur respondent number2, also filed Suit No.792 of 1995 before the Civil Court, Kanpur, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from causing any addition s or alteration s in the shop in dispute.
However, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.1958, holding that while Smt.
The aforesaid suit land was acquired by the State Government for Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad hereinafter referred to as, the Parishad , for the development of the Talkatora Road Scheme, Lucknow, vide numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894 dated 20.10.1962.
The appellants defendants had hence, been in default of payment of rent.
Respondent number1 Gopi Krishan, filed SCC Suit No.77 of 1989 on 21.2.1989, alleging that the appellants had defaulted in making the payment of rent, and that a sum of Rs.2,768.62 was outstanding against them, as rent payable between the time period 17.2.1986 to 13.8.1988, and also damages for the period 14.8.1988 to 21.2.1989, amongst other amounts due.
Janki Bibi 2nd companytested the suit, denying the aforesaid adoption.
That the property bearing number264/1 53 admeasuring 17 bighas, 2 biswas, 2 biswansi and 19 kachwansi to the extent of half share situated in village Suppa Rao, Pargana Tehsil, District Lucknow, was owned by Radhey Shyam.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties, and perused the record.
Hence, these appeals.
The said judgment and order has been affirmed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2002.
Radhey Shyam was the adopted son of Durga Prasad, whose son Shyam Sunder was married to Janki Bibi 2nd .
They thus, companytinued to pay rent to the vendee Smt.
During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, Madhuri Saran died and his legal heirs were substituted.
Janki Bibi 2nd in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj in Lucknow, seeking the relief of declaration, stating that Janki Bibi was only a life estate holder in respect of the properties shown in Schedule A, and that further, she was number entitled to receive any companypensation or rehabilitation grant bonds with respect to the village Nawai Perg, Jhalotar Ajgain, Tehsil Hasangunj, District Unnao.
However, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.1958, holding that while Smt.
Jhalotar Ajgain, Tehsil Hasangunj, District Unnao.
Thus, Radhey Shyam created a life interest in the property in favour of Janki Bibi 2nd , by way of an oral Will, which further provided that she would have the right to adopt a son only with the companysent of Mohan Lal, the grand son of Har Dayal.
Ram Kumari, mother of the appellants and vendee in the sale deed dated 7.5.1974, had taken several pleas, all of which were rejected, and such findings have been affirmed by the High Court.
When respondent number1 learnt about the order dated 22.5.2000, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC, for the purpose of setting aside the said award dated 22.5.2000.
The possession of the said land was taken on 30.12.1971, after companypletion of certain formalities.
Janki Bibi 2nd was in fact the life estate holder of Radhey Shyams property, she was also entitled to receive the said companypensation, in respect of the property in question herein.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 20.2.2002, rejected the said application, on the ground that an application under Order IX Rule 13 can only be filed by a person who was a party to the proceedings in which such an order was passed, and that such an application was number maintainable at the behest of a stranger.
Gopi Krishan filed a Regular Suit No.45 of 1956 against Smt.
Janki Bibi 2nd companytested the suit, denying the aforesaid adoption.
Per companytra, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel and Shri Arvind Kumar, learned companynsel, appearing for the respondents, have opposed the appeals, companytending that the companyrts below have number touched upon or determined the issue of title.
Janki Bibi 2nd died on 27.2.1996.
Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order, dated 20.10.2011, passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.764 of 2002 MS , by way of which, the High Court has set aside the order of the trial companyrt dated 20.2.2002 by which it had rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the CPC , for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2000 in Misc.
The said tenant, Shri Badri Vishal died on 23.1.1986, and the tenancy was hence inherited by the appellants.
In the meanwhile, Madhuri Saran, predecessor in interest of the present appellants, filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.66 of 1999, for enhancement of companypensation in respect of half share in the aforesaid suit land.
It was necessary for the companyrts below, to rely upon the said judgment and decree dated 23.4.1958, wherein it was categorically held that Smt.
Appellants Versus Gopi Krishan Dead through L.Rs.
The Small Causes Court, Kanpur, dismissed Suit No.77 of 1989 vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.1999, holding that numberrelationship of landlord and tenant existed between respondent number.1 and 2 and the appellants.
The said suit is still pending.
The appellants companytested the suit on various grounds, claiming themselves to be the owners of the property on the basis of a sale deed.
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a review petition, which has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.2003.
Vidyawati Rathaur respondent number2, vide registered sale deed dated 3.8.1989.
He stated all this, while claiming himself to be her adopted son.
Janki Bibi 2nd was in fact the life estate holder of Radhey Shyams property, she was also entitled to receive the said companypensation in respect of the property in question herein.
Ram Kumari, wife of Shri Badri Vishal, vide registered sale deed dated 7.5.1974.
Janki Bibi 2nd was a party and after her death, Madhuri Saran and his legal heirs were also brought on record, pursuant to the Will of Janki Bibi as a legatee.
However, the said judgment and decree was set aside by the Revisional Court, vide judgment and decree dated 8.3.2000, and the case was remanded to the Judge, Small Causes Court for deciding the same afresh.
Ram Kumari.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2798 of 2013 Ram Prakash Agarwal Anr.
Thus, the appeal has numbermerit, and is hence, liable to be dismissed.
During the pendency of the suit, Shri Gopi Krishan respondent number1, sold the said suit property to Smt.
Janki Bibi 2nd was a life estate holder, and that as she had number acquired absolute title over the property, the sale deed executed by her in favour of Smt.
As per the judgment passed by the companypetent companyrt, Smt.
Shyam Sunder died in the year 1914.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that The dispute pertains to the ownership of shop number53/11 old number companyresponding to its new number, i.e. 53/8, Nayayaganj, Kanpur Nagar.
2799 of 2013 Hari Prakash Agarwal Anr.
Appellants Versus Gopi Krishan Dead through L.Rs.
Case No.269 of 1983, claiming companypensation in respect of the properties acquired by the State of P., on the ground that he possessed the legal right to do so, as a vested remainder, under the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1958.
After such remand, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20.4.2001, holding that the suit property had been acquired by Gopi Krishan Agrawal, plaintiff respondent, by virtue of the judgment in Suit No.45 of 1956, which was decided on 23.4.1958, and that the relationship of a landlord and tenant, companyld in fact be deemed to have been created between the parties.
Case No.
Janki Bibi Ist daughter of Har Dayal, was married to one Durga Prasad, son of Dina Nath.
66 of 1999.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
Janki Bibi 2nd , in the Court of the Civil Judge Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow, seeking the relief of declaration, stating that Janki Bibi was only a life estate holder in respect of the properties shown in Schedule A, and that further, she was number entitled to receive the companypensation or rehabilitation grant bonds with respect to the village Nawai Perg.,
In pursuance of the said Reference award, the appellants applied for withdrawal of the enhanced companypensation.
However, Janki Bibi 2nd transferred the same in favour of the appellants mother Smt.
In the said case, Smt.
Respondents And CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In view thereof, respondent number2 got herself impleaded as plaintiff number2 in Suit No.77 of 1989.
Gopi Krishan filed Regular Suit No.45 of 1956 against Smt.
Aggrieved, the respondents preferred a writ petition before the High Court, which has been allowed by the Court holding, that while an application under Order IX Rule 13 was number maintainable, the said award should have been set aside in exercise of its powers under Section 151 CPC, as the same was required to be done, in order to do substantial justice between the parties.
Ram Kumari, was null and void.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed Revision No.57 of 2001 before the learned District Judge, Kanpur, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.5.2002.
The said judgment and decree dated 23.4.1958, was also relied upon in companylateral proceedings, wherein Smt.
Gopi Krishan, the great grand son of Mohan Lal, claims to have been adopted by Janki Bibi 2nd , with the companysent of Mohan Lal, and as regards the same, a registered document was also prepared.
He stated all this, claiming himself to be her adopted son.
Radhey Shyam was the adopted son of Durga Prasad, whose son Shyam Sunder was married to Janki Bibi 2nd .
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. A. No.629 of 2004 This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2002, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No.25785 of 2002, by way of which, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellants, affirming the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court dated 20.4.2001, which stood affirmed by the Revisional Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.5.2002.
Thus, Radhey Shyam created a life interest in the property in favour of Janki Bibi 2nd , by way of an oral Will, which further provided that she would have the right to adopt a son only with the companysent of Mohan Lal, the grand son of Har Dayal.
In the aforesaid judgments, the companyrts below have held, that the relationship of a landlord and tenant did number exist between respondent number.1 and 2 and the appellants.
Civil Appeal No.630 of 2004 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.2.2003, in Review Application No.206905 of 2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing the review petition.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that The dispute pertains to the ownership of shop number53/11 old number companyresponding to its new number, i.e. 53/8, Nayayaganj, Kanpur Nagar.
Shyam Sunder died in the year 1914.
