That suit was referred to the arbitration of the plaintiffs Advocate by an application dated 31.5.1938 and the Arbitrator made his award on 20.6.1938 on the basis of a companypromise between the parties which he treated as a family settlement.
The remaining one third share went to Tarawati, daughter of the donor from the deceased wife with life interest and after her, absolutely to her son.
Under the decree, Chander Mohan got a right of enjoyment during his life time.
1 and the sons of Mohinder Mohan, another brother of Chander Mohan together got one third share each.
On 29.6.1937 he made a gift of it in favour of Gian Chand, son of his brother but on 8.12.1937 filed a suit for cancellation of the gift.
Soon after the disposal of the second round of litiga tion, Rama Devi and her son Rabindra claiming to be widow and son respectively of Chander Mohan filed a suit claiming two thirds share in the property and for partitioning there of along with other ancillary reliefs.
558 of 1973 From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.1972 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No.
The trial Court dismissed the suit by finding Rama Devi was wife of Chander Mohan and Rabindra is their son The judgment of the High Court in the second round of litigation did number bar the present claim The award was void and the gift operated and since under it, numbershare was given to the plaintiffs, they had numberright to sue for partition.
The High Court held that the three plaintiffs were number entitled to a share in the property.
The High Court did number agree with the trial Court that the award was bad and the gift operated.
1 who maintains that the plaintiffs have numberinterest in the suit house has challenged the appellate decree.
B. Rohtagi and B.P. Maheshwari for the Appellant.
A second round of litigation in respect of the property started with the suit in June 1953 by the three sons of Mohinder Mohan asking for exclusive possession of their one third share in the house and for accounting.
Gian Chand Defendant No.
After a chequered career, this litigation received a final seal by the judgment of the High Court in R.S.A. No.
1 is against this reversing decree.
This appeal by defendant No.
61 D of 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Appeal No.
The award was accepted by the Court on the same day and a decree followed.
Admittedly the house in dispute belonged to Chander Mohan.
Defendant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by certificate is by defendant No.
P. Verma for the Respondents.
The trial Court had dismissed the suit but the High Court has found that the plaintiffs were entitled to one third share as against two thirds claimed by them and has given a decree for it.
36 D of 1962.
1 and is directed against the reversing decree of the High Court in a suit for partition of a house and other related reliefs.
It found that the plaintiffs had one third share and decreed the claim to that extent.
