The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grandsons of the property owner could not claim any right, title, or interest in the self-acquired property of their grandfather under the Mitakshara Law or the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

These are two writ petitions, filed by Sri Anand Swarup Chaudhry and others, praying for quashing of all the proceedings in Original Suits No. 65/2007 and 267/2007, pending in the court of Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Faizabad. Since both the petitions relate to the common property and the issues of facts and law are common, we have heard them together and they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Briefly, the facts relate to a house (no. 3/15/29) constructed by late Sri Laxmi Narayan Chaudhary situate at Dhara Road, Faizabad, by purchasing a land out of his own earnings in the year 1952. He died on 29.11.1982 leaving behind three sons, namely, Sri Gyan Swarup Chaudhary, Sri Anand Swarup Chaudhary (petitioner) and Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary (opposite party), two daughters, Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi and five grandchildren, namely, Sri Pankaj Chaudhary son of Sri Gyan Swarup Chaudhary born on 23.06.1976, Sri Raj Vardhan born on 25.03.1965 and Sri Prabhakar Vardhan born on 26.01.1968 sons of Sri Anand Swarup Chaudhary and Sri Prashant Chaudhary born in 1977 and Sri Vivek Chaudhary born on 08.09.1982 both sons of Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary.

3. Original suit bearing no. 231 of 1986 was preferred on 23.08.1986 by Sri Anand Swarup Chaudhary in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, for partition of the said house in three equal shares. Both sons of late Sri Laxmi Narayan Chaudhary, namely, Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary and Sri Gyan Swarup Chaudhary, and his daughters, namely, Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi, were impleaded as opposite parties in the said suit. Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Krishna Devi did not contest the suit and abandoned their shares, to be divided amongst their three brothers. The aforesaid suit was hotly contested by Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary, which was decreed on 31.08.1995.

4. Learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 30.5.1998 allotted shares to the parties after disposing of the objections raised by them against the partition scheme prepared by the Court Amin. However, in the First Appeal preferred by Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary, this Court made slight modifications in the final decree vide its order dated 17.1.2003, which in effect allowed Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary to select one share out the three shares. Against the aforesaid order passed by the this Court, Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary preferred a special leave petition bearing no. 6538 of 2003 before the Apex Court, which was dismissed on 28.11.2003. The Supreme Court gave time to Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary to select any one of the three shares as permitted by this Court. On 12.12.2004, Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary opted for the middle portion of the house in which he was already living; but at the same time he did not vacate the other portion of the house which was in his occupation since before.

5. Meanwhile, execution proceedings for the decree were initiated and the executing court vide its order dated 15.1.2007 ordered for delivery of possession to the petitioner of his share. Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary preferred a revision against the aforesaid order, but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 17.3.2007. Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary then challenged the aforesaid orders dated 15.1.2007 and 17.3.2007 by filing a writ petition bearing no. 2228 of 2007 (M/S) before this Court which was subsequently dismissed on 30.4.2007.

6. It is pertinent to mention that on that very date i.e. 17.3.2007, when the revision preferred by Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sri Vivek Chaudhary, younger son of Sri Hari Swarup Chaudhary filed a suit through his mother Dr. Maya Chaudhary as his power of attorney holder, seeking a declaration of 1/8th share in the property (house in question) claiming himself to be a coparcener under the Mitakshara Law. The suit was numbered as Original Suit No. 65 of 2007. He also prayed for stay of the execution of decree, passed a