A perusal of will shows the share of late Lekhi Ram in Khewat Nos.
The order of the Panchayat Adalat reads thus After his death a dispute arose about the property of Lekhi Ram son of Todar Mal.
It was an appeal preferred by the appellants against the orders of Tehsildar and Assistant Collector, Ghaziabad directing that Anandi Devi should be recorded as an asami during her lifetime.
Smt Anandi has numberconnection with the remaining property willed by Lekhi Ram by deed dated 20 11 1943.
48 solely belongs to Smt Anandi which Lekhi Ram purchased by sale deed and Anandi has right upon them.
The memo application filed by the parties reads as follows In the above case, we, both the parties have made mutual companypromise.
Anandi Devi died in the year 1980.
The execution of this gift deed gave rise to a fresh round of litigation between Murari Lal on one side and Anandi Devi and her grandsons appellants herein on the other.
The one Khata whose boundaries as under 176/111/1 3022/1/1 306/2/4 1008/11 Khewat 107 boundaries bazar in the East, in West with Ch.
TI of Anandi 18 7 1953 Sd/ Murari Lal By an order dated 14 9 1953 the Panchayat Adalat disposed of the aforesaid cases in terms of the said companypromise.
Murari Lal has numberclaim over the self acquired property of Lekhi Ram which is number part of the will.
Out of ancestral Khewat No.
Except for these 4 numbers, the property in favour of Murari Lal in the remaining part of the will companysists of Khewat 97, 93, 107, 143, 16, 228, 247, 125 and 126 and out of 2923/1/4 fourth biswa is that of Anandi.
The order of the Board of Revenue was questioned by the appellants in the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
The Additional Collector decided that the said question shall be left open for being agitated after the death of Anandi Devi to which companyrse companynsel for both the parties agreed.
Disputes arose between Anandi Devi and Murari Lal soon after the death of Lekhi Ram in 1953.
They are number relatives and they do number have any litigation in future.
One application was filed for transfer Entry 31/1 by Smt Anandi, widow of Lekhi Ram.
These were acquired by Murari Lal after demise of Lekhi Ram.
The Board of Revenue held the suit to be maintainable and accordingly remitted the matter to the trial companyrt to try the suit on merits.
The question of mutation after her lifetime will remain open for reconsideration.
The Tehsildar is directed to enter the names of Rajeshwar and Brijeshwar appellants on the disputed plots including the three plots as companyrected as bhumidhar in place of Smt Anandi Devi for her lifetime.
The Revenue Court framed two preliminary issues on the basis of the said objections.
The companytention of Murari Lal was that Anandi Devi had only a life interest whereas the case of tile appellants and Anandi Devi was that she had all absolute title to tile properties mentioned in the aforesaid memo of companypromise.
In the year 1943, Lekhi Ram and Attar Singh who too did number have any sons executed a will in respect of their joint family properties in favour of Murari Lal.
One Todar Mal had three sons Lekhi Ram, Attar Singh and Murari Lal.
Both the parties describe themselves as heirs of Lekhi Ram.
The parties have taken possession of their shares by companypromise.
The other application 31/2 was filed in 1953 by Murari Lal, brother of Lekhi Ram.
This dispute came to be disposed of by an order dated 1 8 1 1957 passed by the Additional Collector, Meerut.
The appellants companytested the same and raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit.
The Consolidation Officer directed that the entries should be made in accordance with the terms of the companypromise memo and that ally entries to the companytrary should be rectified.
In the year 1968, a numberification was issued Linder the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 in respect of the said village.
Lekhi Ram died in 1953.
Both parties will abide by it and hence would have numberobjection.
Accordingly Murari Lal filed the suit out of which the present proceedings arise under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Lands Reforms Act.
Murari Lal applied to the Tehsildar to mutate the lands in the name of Anandi Devi in his name on the basis that Anandi Devi had only a life interest in those lands.
The Tehsildar directed Murari Lal to obtain a declaration in a regular suit.
Certain proceedings took place between Anandi Devi and Murari Lal Linder the said Act but these disputes, it appears, related to only some of the lands.
Jaghir Singh and Bishambar in the North companyrtyard and pathway South ahata Chandra Swarup and Khewat 72 was obtained by Lekhi Ram by sale deed.
31/1 and 31/2 of 1983 a settlement was arrived at between Anandi Devi and Murari Lal, which was reduced to writing on 18 7 1953 and filed before the Panchayat Adalat.
93 and 97, 107, 143, and 16, 128, 247, 125, 126 and the house.
While the dispute was pending before the Panchayat Adalat Niwadi, District Meerut in Case Nos.
Murari Lal carried the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue which allowed it.
Besides this there is residential and agricultural landed property of Lekhi Ram which is self acquired which is apart from the will and Anandi is the permanent owner of these properties.
In these proceedings companyies of companypromise memo, judgment of the Panchayat Adalat and the will executed by Lekhi Ram and Attar Singh in favour of Murari Lal 1943 were filed.
He had numbersons.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P JEEVAN REDDY, J. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
On 5 4 1954 Anandi Devi executed a deed of gift in respect of her properties in favour of the appellants who are the sons of her daughter Shanti Devi.
An appeal preferred by Murari Lal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Meerut on 14 11 1982.
12678 of 1985 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order.
Therefore both the applications are decided with the companysent of the parties.
Murari Lal has filed a will dated 20 11 1943 which is a registered will of Lekhi Ram and Attar Singh.
File has been prepared but parties have reached a companypromise which is decreed.
Accordingly, he dismissed the suit on 23 8 1982.
He left behind his wife Anandi Devi and a daughter Shanti Devi.
Sd Seal Adalat Panchayat Chiranji Lal Sarpanch.
107 which was willed by Lekhi Ram in favour of Murari Lal, 4 numbers were given to Anandi by Murari Lal.
Therefore Murari Lal who is owner of 176/111/4, 3022/19, 306/2/4 and 1008/9, Khewat 107 and the house bounded by bazar in East, house of Raghubir Singh in the West, companyrtyard and public way in the North and ahata Chandra Swarup in the South has given the same to Smt Anandi.
The decision is as under The property assigned to Smt Anandi 3258 2111/2 31/8 Khewat/100 Khewat 97 3361 3362 Khewat 26 8111/8 911 643 668 742 812 2734 292782 2924 111/1 1/1 1/ 1/ 111/ 111/ 1/ Khewat No.
Muraris case was that the name of Anandi Devi was wrongly recorded in respect of certain of his lands, which he wanted to be rectified.
The trial companyrt decided the issues against tile plaintiff Murari Lal.
