The first defendant Dukh Haran Singh resisted the petition inter alia companytending that it did number disclose a cause of action and that, in any event, the claim made by the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation.
881 of 1952 and Ram Jiwan preferred Revision Petition 882 of 1952.
The provisions of this rule will number apply to the proceedings on an application for permission to sue as a pauper.
253 of 1961 and respondent No.
F. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant in C. A. No.
The plaintiff and Ramjiwan Misir applied to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction against the orders rejecting their respective petitions but without success.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 2,1955, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision Nos.
Holding that it did number disclose a cause of action the Subordinate Judge rejected the petition of the plaintiff.
Against the two orders passed by the subordinate Judge the plaintiff preferred Revision Application No.
Initially Ram Jiwan Misir supported the will and the plea of adoption set up by the first defendant, but by an application dated April 21, 1951, prayed that he be transposed as a petitioner submitting that his previous statement was procured by companyrcion and companytained averments which were untrue.
Ramjiwan did number pay the companyrt fee as directed but on July 23, 1951, he again applied for being transposed as a petitioner in the petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis filed by the plaintiff.
January 19.
253 of 1961.
881 and 882 of 1952.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
2 became owners of the entire property in suit as their joint ancestral property.
Ramjiwan was directed to pay the companyrt fee payable on the plaint within ten days and in default of payment, his application was to stand dismissed.
A will alleged to be executed by Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh on July 20, 1891, was set up but it was void and ineffective because, firstly, it was procured by undue influence, companyrcion and fraud practised upon the testater, and, secondly it created a line of succession companytrary to law.
He died in 1870 and the Raj devolved upon his daughters son Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh, who died on November 9, 1906, leaving him surviving two widows Suraj Kumari and Jagdamba Devi and numberlineal descendant.
They have with special leave appealed to this Court against the orders passed by the High Court.
The petition filed by Ramjiwan Misir was then taken up for hearing and was also rejected because, in the view of the learned Judge, numberuseful purpose would be served by transposing Ram Jiwan Misir as company plaintiff when the application filed by the plaintiff was held to be defective and liable to be rejected under O. 33, r. 5 d , of the Code of Civil Procedure.
253 and 254 of 1961.
254 of 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Vijay Pratap Singh hereinafter called the plaintiff a minor by his next friend Pandit Brij Mohan Misir filed a petition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Faizabad for leave to sue in forma pauperis for declaration of title to the Ajodhya Raj and accretions thereto and for possession and mesne profits for three years prior to the suit.
Defendant No.1 Dukh Haran Singh Claimed to be adopted as a son by Jagdamba Devi on February 12, 1909 but the claim was utterly false, fictitious and untrue for the reasons set out in the partition, and the Raj was in the wrongful possession of the first defendant Dukh Haran Singh.
Even if the will was valid and effective the terms thereof alongwith Maharaja Pratap Singhs other acts and declarations had the effect of taking the estate out of the purview of Act I of 1869 with the result that Maharani Jagdama Devi enjoyed the property in suit with a life estate therein, and on her death on June 18, 1938, the entire property in suit vested in Ganga Dutt on whose death the plaintiff and defendant No.
2 in C. A. No.
An application by Ramjiwan Misir father of the plaintiff who was impleaded as the second defendant, to be transposed as a petitioner was also rejected by the Subordinate Judge.
2 in C.A. No.
The petition was rejected by the Subordinate Judge because, in his view, it disclosed numbercause of action.
Maharaja Sir Man Singh holder of the Ajodhya Raj was a Taluqdar in lists I, II and V of the Oudh states set I of 1869.
The plaintiff alleged that his father Ramjiwan Misir was detained and companyfined by the first defendant and was unable to join the plaintiff in the petition.
P. Varma, for the appellant in C.A. No.
1 in both the appeals.
254 of 61 and respondent No.
Accordingly on the death of Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh the Raj devolved upon Maharani Suraj Kumari the senior widow and on her death in 1927 upon Maharani Jugdamba Devi, and on the death of the latter on June 18, 1928 upon Ganga Dutt Misir, grand father of the plaintiff Ganga Dutt Misir died in 1942 and the estate devolved upon his son Ramjiwan and his grandson, the plaintiff as companyparceners in a Hindu joint family.
B. Aggarwala and C. P. Lal, for the respondent No.
The case set up by the plaintiff in his petition was briefly this.
