Alternatively it was pleaded if any one companyld have any interest it would be plaintiff No.
Respondent No.
Similarly, this is number a case in which the right of maintenance was sought to be enforced against Smt.
Jangi Jogi himself died sometime in 1950.
1 was clothed with the very same rights which were possessed by Jugli Bai.
1 filed a second appeal before the High Court.
1 is stated to have raised a claim to the properties of Jangi Jogi by virtue of a gift deed.
P.C., resulted in his favour he was put into possession through the process taken under those proceedings.
1 dispossessed her by companymitting an act of trespass and, therefore, she was entitled to restoration of possession of those properties from the trespasser.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 17, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
2 Jugli Bai but she had as a matter of fact number joined in the suit and her thumb impression on the plaint had been obtained by fraud.
1 who was the sole defendant in the suit put up several pleas claiming, inter alia.
1 by means of the proceedings under s. 145, Cr.
It was further held by the High Court that the companypromise had been properly and lawfully recorded and given effect to by the trial companyrt under 0.
He felt that the companypromise which had been entered into by Jugli Bai and the, defendant should number have been accepted as the appellant was number a party to that companypromise.
2 Jugli Bai entered into companypromise with respondent No.
1 was companycerned it was found that his position was that of a mere trespasser.
As regards the deed of gift set up by respondent No.
1, it was found that Jangi Jogi had never made such a gift.
On the pleadings of the parties the trial companyrt framed as many as 12 issues.
On the basis of that deed be moved the criminal companyrts under S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code and on December 29, 1962 an order was made directing the possession of the properties to be delivered to the said respondent.
The trial companyrt, however, numbersuited the appellant on the ground that since her husband had died in the lifetime of Jangi Jogi the laters estate devolved on his widow Jugli Bai who would be his only heir and she had entered into a companypromise with respondent No.
1 was clothed with the same rights which were possessed by her.
22 of 1962.
The suit was instituted by the appellant along with Jugli Bai the widow of Jangi Jogi.
Jugli Bai in the year 1948.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt found that the thumb impression of plaintiff had number been obtained by fraud but that she had changed sides much to the disadvantage of the appellant.
1 giving up all her claims.
The High Court disposed this of by saying that the rightful claimant on the death of Jangi Jogi was Jugli Bai alone and owing to the companypromise entered into by her respondent No.
He, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial companyrt and remanded the case with directions to re admit the suit under its original number and dispose it of in accordance with law.
The appellant, therefore, instituted a suit in the companyrt of Civil judge at Rewa for a declaration in respect of her rights and for possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint.
It was further found that the appellant was in possession until she had been dispossessed by respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leave from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissing the suit of the appellant for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit properties and for possession thereof.
Appeal No.
Respondent No.
During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No.
If the findings of the trial companyrt was right that respondent No.
Jangi Jogi had inherited from his father properties companysisting of some groves and a house in village Mukupdpur which was in the erstwhile State of Rewa which later became a part of the St ate number called Madhya Pradesh.
So far as the title of respondent No.
C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh for respondent No.
The appellant went up in appeal to the companyrt of District Judge, Rewa.
Respondent No.
Juglibai on the property which was inherited by her from the last male holder, Jangi Jogi.
that he had been in companytinuous possession of the suit properties for more than twelve years and had become the owner.
The learned District Judge examined the point whether the companypromise entered into by one of the plaintiffs Jugli Bai with the defendant was valid and should have been given effect to by the trial companyrt.
In forma pauperis .
P.C. According to the trial companyrt the said respondent had illegally occupied the lands for some time and since the proceedings under s. 145, Cr.
532 of 1966.
V. Goswami, for the appellant.
According to him it companyld number be said that the appellant bad numberright or interest in the properties left by Jangi Jogi.
He had a son Laldas who is stated to have died in 1945 leaving the appellant, his widow, as, his heir and legal representative.
He was further of the view that the trial companyrt bad number decided all the matters which arose for decision.
After the death of Laldas Jangi Jogi is alleged to have married Mst.
