The present suit is barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
1 in paragraph 6 it was stated that the plaintiff is out of possession of the properties in suit.
46 of 1956 on the file of learned Civil Judge, Bareilly claiming a share in the properties described in the plaint schedule attached thereto against Smt.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal with reference to properties Nos.
Based on the companypromise the Civil Judge, Bareilly passed a decree dated 26 2 1960.
51, 52 and 53 Civil Lines, Bareilly, be passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendants with companyts of the suit or such other relief be granted to the plaintiff to which she may be found entitled to on the merits of the case.
51, 52 and 53 Civil Lines, Bareilly.
Jamuna Kunwar defendant No.
In the additional written statement of defendant No.
In the additional pleas in paragraph 7 of the written statement, the second defendant averred that the suit is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff has never taken judicial possession over the shares of the other companysharers of the properties mentioned in the suit.
The relevant clause in the companypromise which has a bearing in this case reads as follows The income from the entire disputed property will be received by Smt.
51, 52 and 53 which were valued at Rs.
It appears certain other suits also came to be clubbed along with this suit and all of them were dismissed.
While as regard property No.
23/63 for a declaration of the title with respect to three properties bearing Nos.
It appears that Keshav Chandra filed Suit No.
Thereupon the plaintiff preferred the first appeal No.
20,000/ as seen from the above decree.
20,000/ Twenty Thousand and her own above mentioned share in the property.
Jamuna Kunwar will remain in possession and will manage the entire disputed property for her lifetime.
Jamuna Kunwar filed suit No.
In the disputed property, after excluding the property worth Rs.
20,000/ twenty thousand the plaintiff and the defendants Nos.
A companypromise was entered into between the parties.
Jamuna Kunwar and his two brothers Jagdish Chandra and Gokul Chandra.
3 for her entire lifetime.
She will have the absolute right to spend this income.
Hence, he was added as the second plaintiff.
1 to 3 have equal shares i.e. every one is the owner of 1/4th share.
The donor of the appellant Smt.
The defendants Keshav Chandra and Jagdish Chandra are her sons.
The defendant No.
Based on this decree the suit was filed for declaration with reference to Bungalows Nos.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
Jamuna Kunwar defendant No.
3 for her entire lifetime.
Jamuna Kunwar is the absolute owner of the above mentioned property worth Rs.
Pleading appeal Jamuna Kunwar executed a deed of gift dated 10 6 68 of the suit properties.
446 of 1968.
51 and 53.
20,000/ the plaintiff and defendants Nos.
1 to 3 have equal shares i.e. every one is the owner of one fourth share.
She will have the absolute right to spend the income.
In the disputed property, after excluding the property worth Rs.
In the written statement of the first defendant in paragraph 8 of the Additional Pleas it was stated thus The plaintiff is in the exclusive possession of the properties in suit.
3 Smt.
The decree passed on this companypromise to the following effect The income from the entire disputed property will be received by Smt.
