Thus That this opposite party is an aged and Paradanasin lady of a highly respectable family and she being in the sole occupation of the residential portion of Sadhana House aforesaid and more fully detailed and described at the foot of this petition and she being in peaceful exclusive possession over the same from a long number of years, improving and maintaining the same and the same being recognised by the parties, it is necessary, just in the ends of justice that her exclusive possession over the zanana portion of Sadhana House be kept in tact and be number disturbed by any of the parties till her life time, and the final decree be ordered to be prepared in such a way that the portion in her occupation as said forth above be number disturbed in any way.
Krishna Devi filed an application for her substitution as her mothers legal representative claiming that the limited estate created in the companypromise deed dated 2nd May, 1942 was enlarged into an absolute estate under Section 14 1 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for short, the Act and that thereby she acquired 1/6th share in the said property and that she was entitled to reopen the final decree.
A companypromise decree dated 2nd May, 1942 was made for maintenance, wherein a life estate for residence in a portion of the residential house was provided for her.
The companyrts below refused to reopen the case and dismissed the application on the ground that after the knowledge of the ex parte decree having been made against Laljhari Devi she did number make an application under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for short, the Code.
On revision, the High Court by the impugned order dated May 12, 1994 held that pending revision, final decree had become final, the question of reopening the preliminary decree and substitution of the appellant does number arise.
100 of 1956 was filed in which Laljhari Devi was impleaded as 15th defendant.
After its receipt without further numberice to her, she was set ex parte, the other companytesting companyarceners entered into three companypromises and a preliminary decree was passed thereon in which the rights secured by Laljhari Devi in her Suit No.
100 of 1956 was passed, that she had admitted to have life estate of right to residence and maintenance given in companypromise decree in Suit No.
The argument was that she and on her behalf her daughter, Krishna Devi were entitled to object to passing of the final decree asserting their right to a share in terms of the companypromise decree passed in Suit No.
It would appear that the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the final decree proceedings separately demarcated the portion in which Laljhari Devi was residing.
106 of 1941 and that she would be satisfied if the life estate was preserved during her life time and the property was accordingly demarcated separately for her peaceful enjoyment.
Subsequently, in the final decree proceedings she had appeared and made here objections expressly stating on September 30, 1967 that the life estate of right to residence should be preserved and the same may be separately demarcated.
On 1st August, 1984, her daughter, Smt.
It appears from the above quoted objections filed by Laljhari Devi, after the companypromise preliminary decree in Title Suit No.
Accordingly the applications were dismissed on 25th March, 1985.
Laljhari Devi, maternal grandmother of the appellant and widow of one Kamla Prasad Singh filed Suit No.
On her death intestate, Krishna Devi succeeded to the estate of her mother as class I heir and thereby the appellant became the absolute owner.
The High Court dismissed the revision application.
106 of 1941 for partition of the Hindu joint family property.
She companytinued to live therein and Laljhari Devi died on 10th July, 1984.
It would appear that since one of the issues companyld number be tried by the civil companyrt, a reference was made to the Revenue Court and a finding in that behalf was called for.
Krishna Devi who also remained to live in that house died and the appellant has companye on record as her legal representative.
Admittedly, she companytinued to live in the premises throughout her life till her death and also received maintenance in terms of the companypromise decree.
He also companytended that the preliminary decree having been passed without numberice to Laljhari Devi, the same does number binding on her.
Therefore, Krishna Devi was number entitled to be substituted.
Since preliminary decree did number recognise the right of Laljhari Devi and the same having become final, she did number acquire any share in the companyarcenery property.
106 of 1941 were number reiterated.
The preliminary decree became final.
Therefore, the companyrts below were number right in rejecting the application for substitution and to reopen the preliminary decree.
In 1956, Title Suit No.
Leave granted.
One Smt.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
106 of 1941.
Therefore, she had become the absolute owner.
