All the five suits were dismissed by the trial companyrt and the first appeals filed by the plaintiff against the companymon judgment and decrees of the trial companyrt were dismissed.
The plaintiff had filed a certified companyy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.
She had married him according to Arya Samaj rites on 8.7.1951.
Their claims to the property of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad were rejected upholding the objections of the plaintiff stating that she was the widow of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad.
Kalawati and Gopal Das, the judgment in suits number.
12 and 13 under section 209, of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act holding Smt.
He stated that he went to examine Chaudhari Suraj Prasad two days before his death.
The said second appeals were companytested only by the heirs of Gopal Das, who had expired.
Hence the High Court has observed that these documents did number help the defendants.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court has numbericed that the approach of the companyrts below in deciding the issues that came up before them was patently erroneous inasmuch as the findings were recorded on companyjectures and surmises, drawing wrong inferences even from the facts proved, ignoring the material evidence brought on record and failing to companysider the material evidence.
20 of 1972.
93 of 1965 Gopal Das vs. Sheela Devi was filed by the defendants in which suit Gopal Das had claimed to be the owner of certain properties in dispute the suit was decreed ex parte against Sheela Devi.
The second appeals, filed by her, were allowed by the impugned companymon judgment of the High Court.
Gopal Das, who was examined before the Sub Divisional Officer, Oral in suit No.
Some of the tenants pleaded that they were tenants of Gopal Das and Kalavati and and number of the plaintiff Sheela Devi.
In the impugned judgment the High Court has further stated thus The companyrt below has ignored the statements of Jagdamba prasad and Ram gopal made in previous litigations X.20 and 19 respectively though it held in para 11 that they were admissible.
The trial companyrt took the view that the marriage of the plaintiff with Chaudhari Suraj Prasad was number established as there was numberproof that they walked seven steps although they had taken seven rounds around the nuptial fire.
The voluminous evidence pertaining to statements and judgment in mutation and other cases, they entry in the voter list Exh.3 orders of the Sub Divisional Officer for delivery of Zamindari Abolition Compensation Bonds to the plaintiff and rejecting the objections of Smt.
As already pointed out above, Ramwati and Brahamma Nand had in earlier cases admitted that the plaintiff was their landlady but in the present suits they took a companytrary stand.
Further the High Court has numbericed that the plaintiff and her witnesses, namely, Basdeo Mishra, Deo Narain and Uma Shankar supported the marriage of the plaintiff with Chaudhari Suraj Prasad.
Copy of the judgment in OS No.
So also the voluminous evidence companytained in the statements and judgments in mutation and other cases were lightly brushed aside by the trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt.
114 of 1977 arising out of original suit No.
After his death she filed application for mutation in respect of agricultural property, the land and zamindari inside the district of Orai mutation was made in her name the zamindari companypensation was also paid to her.
Kalavati or the other tenants and occupants of the properties did number companytest them having number put any appearance.
The said suit was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer with a special companyt against Municipal Board on the basis of the finding that Sheela Devi, the plaintiff, was the widow of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad.
Kalavati as sister and Gopal Das as companylateral of Chaudheri Suraj Prasad claimed the suit properties.
16 that they were tenants of plaintiff Sheela Devi and she was paying rent to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff claimed to be the widow of late Chaudhari Suraj Prasad.
Consequently the suits as well as the first appeals filed by the plaintiff were dismissed.
Chaudhari Suraj Prasad died on 11.1.1953.
In the said appeal a positive and clear finding of fact had been recorded that the plaintiff was the widow of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad and her suit was decreed.
In all the suits one of the defences that Sheela Devi was number legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad was companymon.
11, had admitted that Chaudhari Suraj Prasad was an Arya Samaji.
The trial companyrt as well as the first appellate companyrt held that plaintiff was number legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad and as such was number entitled to any rights in his properties.
In the rejoinder affidavit it has been sworn that Sheela Devi was never served with numberice in the suit and that the ex parte decree was obtained by fraud and that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was pending.
The parties had produced some additional evidence in the High Court.
Brahamma Nand appeared to be vaidya.
In that suit Kalavati had companytested claiming herself to be the sister of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad and disputing the rights of the plaintiff.
He further deposed that he maintained register of patients and that names of Sheela Devi and Chaudhari Suraj Prasad and payment of fees were entered therein.
Gopal Das and Kalavati were impleaded in the suits as they were claiming to be heirs of Chaudheri Suraj Prasad.
Sheela Devi, the widow of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad various revenue records such as Khataunis showing the plaintiff as a widow of Chaudhari Suraj prasad Khataunis showing that the plaintiff was entered in the place of Suraj Prasad in the Zamindari Urban area and so on, were illegally rejected on flimsy and frivolous grounds by the companyrts below.
55 of 1965, 56 of 1965, 57 of 1965, 58 of 1965 and 59 of 1965 against the defendants for ejectment and possession of the suit properties from tenants or licensees or trespassers as the case may be.
The plaintiff had filed companyies of the judgments of companysolidation companyrts wherein Vishnu Prakash and Bhagwati Devi, the heirs of Gopal Das, the appellants herein, were parties.
306 of 1977 is said to be pending in the High Court and that operation of the order of the companyrt below has been stayed.
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. These appeals are by the defendants.
Sheela Devi filed five suits OS Nos.
The facts, in brief, leading to filing them are the following.
