By different deeds of transfer, Murlidhars share passed to Shrimati Kallo original defendant No 4, and to Kundan Lal, the predecessor in interest of Kunj Behari Lal and Shrimati Dallo.
8/1957, reversing the judgment and decree of a single judge of that companyrt in First Appeal No.
Faqir Bux, original defendant No.
Haji Faqir Bux died during the pendency of the litigation.
They further companyended that the shops kotharies companystructed by Haji Khuda Bux and Faqir Bux.
The blue portion belonged to Mumtaz Mahal and there are three shops in it the red portion belonged to Mumtaz Mahals successors in interest and there are two kotharies 52A 52B in it.
1 purchased a share in the equity of redemption from the three daughters and the widow of Babu Khuda Bux and then brought a suit for redemption of his share against Murlidhar and ultimately, by paying off the amount due upon his share to Murlidhar, became a companysharer in the property to the extent of 3 annas, 10 pies and 9 kirans.
The names of the tenants are mentioned along with the number of the houses shops occupied by them.
The serial numbers 8, 9, and 10 are the three shops in blue portion.
2/ by the heirs of Babu Khuda Bux to Haji Khuda Bux.
In special appeal, this decision of the learned single judge was reversed by a Division Bench.
Paragraph 13 of the deed is very material That whatever buildings have been companystructed appertaining to the shop situated in Fatehganj, city Lucknow and whatever may be companystructed from time to time, those all shall be treated as joint property of us the declarants and if at any time any companypensation in respect thereof be realised from the owner of the land, then that too shall be treated as joint property.
The Division Bench accepted the case of permanent tenancy set up by defendants 1 to 3.
This paragraph is of significance because the executants did number mention that they were holding the land under any permanent lease.
In the deed of gift dated September 18, 1874, executed by Mumtaz Mahal in favour of Mulko, Mumtaz Mahal referred to the ahata as a grove with pucca shops and in her possession.
Rahim Bux and his two brothers, number being able to pay of the mortgage decree, sold the equity of redemption to one Murlidhar in 1920 Murlidhar redeemed the mortgage by paying off the amount due under the preliminary decree to the Maharaja of Balrampur.
12/ per month and that thereafter, in or about the year 1900 the adjoining land towards the east marked red in the companymissioners plan was leased on the same terms for the extension of tobacco factory on a monthly rent of Rs.
There is numberdispute in this appeal as regards the respective shares of the parties.
3/3 for each shop.
appointed in the case.
Thereafter, on July 12, 1909, Haji Khuda Bux and Faqir Bux executed a deed of partnership, in which they valued the tobacco business at Rs.
Serial numbers 35 and 36 are the two companypounds.
Babu Khuda Bux died in 1895 he was succeeded by three sons Rahim Bux Karim Bux and Nabi Bux, ten daughters and a widow.
54/51 from the decree of the trial companyrt in O.S. No.
In the appeal by Abdul Ghafoor and Sheikh Abdulla, the learned single judge of the High Court agreed with the findings of the trial companyrt on the issue regarding the permanent tenancy right set up by defendants 1 to 3.
The fourth defendant was Shrimati Kallo.
Khuda Bux, tobacco seller, is described as their tenant and rent is Rs.
69/12 of 1940.
The issue regarding the permanent tenancy right was decided against defendants 1 to 3 by the trial companyrt although the companyrt passed a preliminary decree for partition.
In the suit the main companytention of Haji Faqir Bux and his sons Abdul Ghafoor and Sheikh Abdullah, defendants 1 to 3, was that in addition to their being companysharers of the property, they were permanent lessees of the blue and red marked portions in the plan of the plaint property prepared by the companymr.
The case of defendants I to 3 was that the land included within the blue portion was acquired by Haji Khuda Bux in or about the year 1870 from Begam Mumtaz Mahal on a permanent lease for establishing a tobacco factory on a rent of Rs.
Shrimati Mulko sold it to Babu Rahim Bux who was a benamidar for his father Babu Khuda Bux.
This was in the year 1922.
It would seem from that document that numberody else had put up any companystructions in this property at the time the gift deed was executed number is there any mention of the permanent lease in 1870 in favour of Haji Khuda Bux or his predecessor in interest of any portion of the property.
The original plaintiff, one Kundan Lal died during the pendency of the litigation and he was represented by his son Kunj Behari Lal and widow Shrimati Dallo The defendants to the action were four in number Haji Faqir Bux, son of Haji Khuda Bux, and the two sons of Haji Faqir Bux, namely Abdul Ghafoor and Shaikh Abdullah were defendants 1 to 3.
3/3 and of the other companypound as Rs.
46,000/ and they declared themselves as joint owners number only of the business but also of the entire properties specified in the deed whether purchased in the name of Haji Khuda Bux or in the name of Faqir Bux.
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 30 9 1963 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
K. Mathew, JJ.
The suit was for partition and recovery of the plaintiffs share in the plaint property.
