The court emphasized the importance of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the legal principles established in previous cases in reaching its decision.

Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition was heard by this Court and after hearing the petitioner, who appeared in person as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the same was dismissed on 26th August, 2004 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition.

2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner-respondents are of springs of two wives of late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi. Mrs. Rama Vidyarthi, who was subsequently substituted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, filed suit No. 37 of 1969 under Section 6 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the allegation that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, namely Mrs. Rama Vidyarthi and Mrs. Savitri Vidyarthi, both are the wives of late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi, who died on 14th March, 1955. The defendant No. 2, petitioner in the present writ petition, is the son of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 2. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is the sole owner in possession of house No. 7/89, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, having purchased it by registered sale deed dated 27th September, 1961 and having been in continuous undisturbed possession thereof till 26th July, 1968. In the year 1961, when the bungalow No. 7/89. Tilak Nagar, Kanpur was purchased by the plaintiff, then at the request of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff allowed the said defendants, petitioner and respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition,

to continue to live in the said

house as licencees at the will

of the plaintiff, who is

now represented by respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 in the present writ petition.

3. In the year 1966, the defendant No. 2, petitioner in this writ petition, started practice as an advocate and later on he was married in the year 1967 to defendant No. 3, now respondent No. 3 in the present writ petition and after their marriage the defendants decided to settle at Allahabad where the defendant No. 2 wanted to set up his practice. The defendants wanted partition of all the family movables, consequently stocks of all the properties left by plaintiff’s husband, namely, late Hari Shanker Vidyarthi, were taken and the defendants having satisfied themselves as regard the share and having taken the same vacated the said house. It is further alleged that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 started living separately since October, 1967 and after December, 1967, they never lived in the said house i.e. 7/89 Tilak Nagar, Kanpur. The defendant No. 1,

mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also left Kanpur and went to Allahabad to join her son and daughter in law and they finally left the said house in March, 1968. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 with a view to bolster a claim for a share in the property of the plaintiff made a forcible entry in the plaintiff’s aforesaid bungalow No. 7/89, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur on 26th July, 1968 by breaking open the locks with the help of several persons and forcibly occupied two rooms of the front northern side in the said house. The plaintiff lodged a report to the police on the same day through her daughter and requested the defendants to vacate the said two rooms, which they had forcibly and wrongfully occupied, but the defendants instead of vacating the said two rooms began to threaten the plaintiff with dire consequences and also attended to extend their forcible occupation to other portion of the said bungalow. With a view to safeguard her rights and to protect herself from the unlawful acts of the defendant, the plaintiff was compelled to seek help of police and a constable was posted in the said premises from the night of 26th July, 1968 to the morning of 14th August, 1968. The defendant No. 1 petitioner instead of vacating the said house filed a civil suit in the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Kanpur and obtained an ad interim injunction from the learned court on 1st August, 1968 against the plaintiff-mother of respondent Nos. 1 and 2,