18 of 1977, was filed by the appellant for partition.
Before passing on the merits of this appeal, we may observe that the house property has been, and still is, the subject of civil litigation.
The appellant, who had originally been impleaded as a defendant in the suit, was transposed to the array of plaintiffs.
The dispute in this appeal relates to a property described as house No.
In a criminal proceeding against him on a companyplaint by Pyare Lal, he was ultimately companyvicted and sentenced by the High Court under s. 448, Indian Penal Code by an order dated Ist September 1970, under which the High Court also directed that house No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5 1 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Case No.
The house was owned by one Khem Raj, who died leaving a widow, Smt.
Civil Suit No.
Sooraj Devi the appellant and a son, Kailash Chandra Jain the second respondent .
5127 of 1978 before the High Court under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that she was number a party to the criminal proceeding against Kailash Chandra Jain, that she was in possession in her own right, and that the earlier order of the High Court dated Ist September, 1970 directing restoration of possession to Pyare Lal be clarified by a declaration that it was number binding on her and did number affect her possession.
The suit was dismissed in default, but subsequently restoration was allowed by the Trial Court on payment of companyts, and the time for payment of companyts was extended by the High Court.
Pursuant to that order, Pyare Lal applied for possession.
The Magistrate overruled her objection, observing that it was open to her to establish her right by way of suit.
An application for interim injunction for preserving the appellants possession in the house property has been dismissed by the trial companyrt.
The appellant then filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
The appellant filed an objection, asserting a right to the property.
On 5th January, 1979, the High Court dismissed the application in view of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala etc.
The rejection of her objection was upheld by the High Court by its order dated 21st July, 1978.
24/47, Birhana Road, Kanpur.
As the property was meanwhile sold and the sale companyfirmed the suit was regarded as infructuous and the plaint was allowed to be rejected for want of companyrt fee.
Instead, Civil Suit No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
24/47, Birhana Road, Kanpur be restored to the possession of the companyplainant.
A suit filed by the South India Trading Company against Jethmal Laxmichand was decreed and execution proceedings were taken for the attachment and sale of the aforesaid house property.
A third suit, Civil Suit No.
53 of 1964 was filed by the minor sons of Kailash Chandra Jain claiming that they were joint owners of the property, that the sale companyferred numberright, title or interest in Pyare Lal and that they were entitled to an injunction.
Kameshwar Prasad and Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.
471 of 1979.
Pyare Lal obtained possession through the Civil Court Amin on 8th October, 1965, but in his absence Kailash Chandra Jain is said to have removed the lock and entered into possession.
5127 of 1978.
The property was purchased by Pyare Lal the first respondent .
K. Jain for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an application for clarification of an earlier order made by the companyrt in a criminal proceeding.
73 of 1963 was filed by Kailash Chandra Jain and his minor sons alleging that they were entitled to the house property and the decree obtained by the South India Trading Company was number binding on them and companyld number be executed against them.
The order has led to this appeal.
