She died, admittedly, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for short the Succession Act had companye into force.
760 of 1964 dated 1 4 1965.
The suit was therefore, decreed in terms of the companypromise in favour of Sirdhari.
3876 of 1973 in the High Court and by judgment dated 9 9 1990, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the companysolidation orders were number legal and the respondent was entitled to be declared as a companytenant with Jivani and was entitled to the half share therein.
It is the appellants case that Smt Jivani had life estate in the agricultural lands in Khata No.
Consequently, the proceedings stood abated.
Challenging the validity of the said decree, Ram Prasad, it appears, had filed CS No.
Bahadur Singh was in possession of the Khata No.
On her demise, being lineal descendants of Bahadur Singh, the appellants are entitled to succeed to his estate as owners of the land therein.
The appellants are the legal representatives of Ram Prasad and successors to one Umrao Singh, brother of Bahadur Singh.
Bahadur Singh and Umrao Singh were the sons of one Ganga Ram, residents of Village Salarpur, Pargana Mooth, Tehsil Hapur, District Meerut, U.P. The dispute relates to Khata No.
The proceedings ultimately ended against them.
It was only averred in the additional written statement after her demise.
The same was companyfirmed in Civil Appeal No.
66 as a tenant under Chetan Prakash and Jiwan Lal, brothers, landholders at that relevant time.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
While the second appeal was pending, numberification under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for short Consolidation Act was published.
Bahadur Singh died intestate leaving behind his widow, Smt Jivani.
It is further companytended that after 1 7 1952, the date of vesting under the P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, Act 1 of 1952 for short the Abolition Act, she became an absolute owner.
In the companysolidation proceedings the authorities found that the decree obtained by the respondent was a companylusive and fraudulent decree and, therefore, it does number bind the appellants.
While Jivani was in possession and enjoyment of the lands, it would appear that the respondent, Jwala Singh made an application on 9 7 1951 along with an affidavit filed in the proceedings under Section 59 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for short, Tenancy Act and an ex parte decree was obtained that the parties had companye to terms.
Thus all the companysolidation proceedings, the original, appellate and the revisional, ended in favour of the appellants.
Bahadur Singh admittedly was a cultivating tenant and Jivani succeeded to his estate.
Calling in question the said proceedings the respondent filed CMWP No.
Accordingly, the respondent is said to have companytinued in possession of the said lands as a companytenant.
624 of 1952 in the Court of Munsif, Havali at Meerut which was decreed on 28 8 1964 declaring that the decree obtained under Section 59 was companylusive and fraudulent.
66 of that village.
