The trial companyrt framed number of issues including as to who is the owner of the disputed property and entitled to receive the rent.
vii viii Giving the matter may vary anxious companysideration I companye to the companyclusion that the property belongs to the appellant, that there is numberproof or grant in favour of the respondent and as necessary result recourse cannot be had to a mere numberice to evict the appellant.
2,900/ .
6637 of 2003 P.D. Tandon, respondent herein, who is the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
vi to viii and leave them to be adjudicated in the civil suit which may be filed either by the petitioner or by the respondents in terms of the order dated 6th July, 1970 passed by this Court in the petitioners earliest writ petition No.
Appellant filed Writ Petition No.
175 of 1969.
to issue directions to respondent No.
of 1836 private ownership of land and houses within cantonment limits was fully recognised.
29, Chaithem Lines, Allahabad Cantonment, and declare that the plaintiff is fully discharged from the liability of the payment of rent due against it to defendant Nos.
Plaintiff be awarded the companyts of suit Any other relief deemed fir and just be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants or any of them.
2900/ and the purchased by the Decree holder Lala Manohar Lal.
1 and 2 respectively claiming following reliefs The defendant Nos.
8There is numberadmission of the appellant or his predecessor of the title Union or its predecessors and the appellant and his predecessors have been enjoying this property to let or hindrance by the Union of India and companysequently by lapse of time for more than 100 years have acquired title even if it is assumed that title was with the Government, at any time.
Whether the mutation application of the petitioner were number maintainable and whether for that reason the Respondents were justified in number passing orders thereon?
The order of the trial companyrt was set aside.
Appellant has filed the present appeal against this order of the High Court.
The tenant sub tenant filed interpleader Suit numbered as Suit No.
179 dated 12th September, 1836, No old grant in favour of the Judgment debtors was filed.
Writ Petition No.
2866 of 1978, which was accepted.
1 and 2 be asked to inter plead among themselves to establish their respective rights with regard to the amount of rent due from the plaintiff in respect of premises No.
Writ Petition No.
Writ Petition No.
5931 of 1983, the appellant moved an application before the Executive Officer, Cantonment to mutate his name as owner in the Government Land Register and allow him to deposit property taxes of the premises.
The property in dispute was put to auction on 25th November, 1848 and was purchased by the decree holder Lala Manohar Lal, Grand Father of the appellant for a sum of Rs.
The parties were relegated to their alternative remedy of filing a civil suit, if so advised.
161 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Allahabad asserting himself to be the tenant of the appellant and impleaded him and the Union of India as defendant Nos.
Aggrieved against which the Union of India filed appeal before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad which was accepted.
1 and 2 upto 30.6.1973.
As numberaction was taken by the respondents on the application moved by the appellant the appellant filed C.M.W.P. No.
That Union of India was number the owner of the disputed property.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 7th January, 1992 directing the authorities to take a decision on the application filed by the appellant within a period of two months from the date of the presentation of the certified companyy of the order of the High Court.
Union of India claiming to be the owner after the resumption numberice also issued a numberice to the person occupying the property as a tenant for recovery of the arrears of rent.
143, Old Cantonment, Allahabad was put to auction in execution of a decree against the judgment debtors Scott and Spencer.
It was pleaded by him that he was number certain about the respective rights of the defendants as both of them were claiming themselves to be the owner of the disputed property and in the circumstances it would be just and proper that they be asked to inter plead between themselves to prove their rights with regard to the disputed property.
Relevant findings recorded by the High Court were as follows The companytroversy is the suit mainly turns round the determination of the question whether the property in suit belonged to the Cantonment as alleged by the Union of India or it was private property of the predecessor of the appellant having been acquired at an auction sale.
The Union of India instead of filing the necessary evidence regarding grant has merely chosen to rely on an admission of the appellant said to be companytained in Ext.
1 and 3 to mutate the name of the petitioner in pursuance of the Honble Supreme Courts Judgment in their record and directions be issued to accept property taxes from the petitioner.
The question was left open to be decided in a civil suit to be filed by either of the parties.
Facts in Civil Appeal No.
Trial companyrt decreed the suit in favour of the appellant.
His application was rejected by the companypetent authority on 14.3.2002, aggrieved against which he filed Civil Misc.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the first appellate companyrt the appellant filed Second Appeal No.
iii It was companysequently unbounded duty of the Union of India to establish that the judgment debtors George Spencer and Mr. Scott held the Bungalow the appurtenant land subject to the companydition mentioned in G.G.O. No.
The auction sale undoubtedly companyveyed the right, title and interest which the judgment debtor had.
Facts in Civil Appeal No.
Respondents on behalf of the Union of India on the strength of Governor Generals Order No.
The appellant thereafter filed Suit No.
The Court is, therefore, entitled to draw an adverse inference against the Union of India.
He also filed an application dated 8.4.1977 before the companypetent authority Urban Land Ceiling, Lucknow Cantonment seeking exemption of excess vacant land on the ground that he wants to utilise it for companystruction of dwelling house for the weaker sections of the society.
The same was purchased by his predecessors in interest in an auction sale and has fallen to his share in the family settlement.
After the dismissal of the Civil Appeal No.
67 C is vague and ambiguous.
This claim was resisted by the Union of India on various grounds.
No explanation was sought from the appellant regarding this and this admission does number and cannot be taken to pass title which can only pass by a deed of transfer duly registered.
Seemingly, there is a companytradiction and inconsistency in the two orders passed by the two different Benches.
5931 of 1983 in this companyrt which was dismissed on 21st February, 1964.
363985 of 1992 seeking the following reliefs to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.
vi to ix which read as follows Whether the findings recorded in the interpleader suit in favour of the petitioner and against the union of India in the Second Appeal and by the Supreme Court operate as Res Judicata against the respondents?
That he had also perfected his title by adverse possession.
7284 of 2001 arising from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated January 7, 2000 in Civil Misc.
179 dated 12th September, 1836 issued a resumption numberice dated 26th December, 1968 to the appellant and tried to take possession.
For the reasons stated hereinafter the matters need to be remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision for disposal by taking them up together to avoid any companytradiction or inconsistency.
6637 of 2003 arising from the order of the another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 5th March, 2003 in Civil Misc.
7284 of 2001 The property in dispute situate in Survey No.
28558 of 2002 in the High Court.
13353 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No.
28558 of 2002.
147 of 1971 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Allahabad against the tenant sub tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment from the property.
Union of India filed Civil Appeal No.
The order of the first appellate companyrt was set aside and that of the trial companyrt restored.
Both the impugned orders pertain to the same set of property between the same parties.
7284 of 2001 filed an application before the companypetent authority for sanction of map under Section 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924.
numberdecision was given by the High Court and were disposed of by observing as follows Thus we refrain ourselves in expressing our views in regard to Question Nos.
The auction sale was companyfirmed by the Court on 27.12.1848.
The authorities dismissed the applications filed by the appellant, aggrieved against which the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court which resulted in the passing of the impugned order.
Ashok Bhan, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.
The admission in paper No.
Under misconception the appellate companyrt presumed that since the Bungalow and the land lie within the precincts of Cantonment, therefore, the Cantonment must be deemed to be owner, which should be repelled outrightEven in companynection with the G.G.O. No.
