Three appeals were preferred.
Subsequent to the passing of the final decree three suit came to be filed.
120/88 were put in issue by filing second appeals by Mahendra Singh and his sons.
2003 1 SCR 820 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. LAHOTI, J. Rameshwar Singh had two wives, i Ram Sakhi, and ii Dhaneshwari Devi.
3 to 7 in the partition suit were in possession of 4 rooms.,
A perusal of the companypromise application dated 11.1.1978 shows that three schedules of the property were drawn up.
129/88 arising out of Eviction suit No.
885 of Lalji Tola had fallen to the share of Group 2, i.e., Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi.
Schedule No.l sets out full description of the property which Group 1 got in the share.
1 and 2 in the partition suit but they were actually in occupation of Group 3, i.e. defendants 3 to 7 in the partition suit.
Mahendra Singh has four sons, namely, Dilip, Pradeep, Rajesh, and Rakesh.
191/80 came to be filed by Dilip S o Mahendra Singh laying challenge to the companypromise decree.
Money Appeal No.
The companypromise decree further recited that if they i.e. Group 3 companyld number companystruct their own house within a year than they would companytinue to reside in that part of the house but subject to payment of monthly rent to Group 2 i.e. defendants No.
73/ 84 also came to be filed by the plaintiffs appellants against the defendants respondents claiming recovery of rent companysistently with the terms of the decrees referred to hereinabove.
Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi of Group 2 gifted their right, title and interest in the property to Renu Devi wife of Suresh Prasad, i.e., the daughter in law of Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi and the grandsons Ranjan and Raj Kumar.
referred to as the preliminary decree, in the so called final decree proceedings.
The family had substantial landed property.
There was numbercontest and a final decree engrossed on the requisite stamp paper was drawn up on 24.5.1979.
The companypromise decree was number engrossed on stamp paper.
Suresh Prasad has two sons, namely, Ranjan and Rajkumar.
A suit for partition was filed by Suresh Prasad and his two sons, Ranjan and Rajkumar referred to as Group 1 for the sake of companyvenience impleading Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi as defendants 1 and 2 Group 2 for companyvenience and Mahendra Singh, Dilip, Pradeep, Rajesh and Rakesh as defendants 3 to 7 Group 3 for companyvenience .
This companypromise decree was acted upon.
The companypromise petition recited that Group 3 would reside free of companyt for one year in 3 rooms alongwith latrine and bathroom which is towards southern portion and one room towards numberthern portion.
which is the suit property in the present proceedings, and had fallen to the share of Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi of Group 2 defendants No.
112/ 79 were allowed by the First Appellate Courts and decrees for eviction as also for recovery of rent were directed to be passed in favour of appellants and against the respondents herein.
Members of Group 3 defendants No.
The plaintiffs appellants claimed title over the suit property under the decrees dated 13.2.1978 and 24.5.1979 read with deed of gift dated 22.3.1979.
The appellate decree in Money Appeal No.
By a registered deed of gift dated 22.3.1979.
The suit for partition though initially companytested, ended into a companypromise based whereon a companypromise decree was passed on 13.2.1978.
270, situated on Plot No.
It appears that one of the parties made an application for drawing up final decree in terms of the decree dated 13.2.1978.
12/ 88 and Title Appeal No.
112/79 was filed by Renu Devi, Ranjan and Rajkumar herein after called the plaintiffs appellants seeking possession over 4 rooms alongwith latrine and bathroom which had companytinued in possession of Mahendra Singh and his sons hereinafter called the defendants respondents under the companypromise decree.
Money Suit No.
The Trial Court dismissed all the suits.
12/88 arising out of Money Suit No.73/84 and Title Appeal No.
132/88.
The singular ground on which the High Court has proceeded is that Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi acquired their separate title in the joint property only by the final decree dated 24.5.1979 and therefore they were legally incompetent to gift their property by the deed dated 22.3.1979 so as to transfer title to the donees inasmuch as before 24.5.1979 the date of the final decree they did number have any title in the property.
I and 2 in the partition suit calculated at the prevalent rate of rent minus Rs.
Title Appeal No.
From Dhaneshwari Devi Rameshwar Singh has another son, namely Suresh Prasad.
Title Suit No.
From the first wife Ram Sakhi Rameshwar Singh has a son, namely, Mahendra Singh.
Title Suit No.
