ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.D. AGARWAL, J.
Shri Ram & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kasturi Devi & Anr. - Respondent
Second Appeal No's. 950, 1604 and 1605 of 1978
Decided On : 20-09-1983
JUDGMENT
B.D. Agarwal, J. - These three connected second appeals are directed against the judgment and decree of the VI Additional District Judge. Meerut, dated February 28, 1978.
2. The following pedigree will serve to elucidate the relevant facts of the case.
Jwala Prasad ___________________|_________________ | | Mool Chand Nanuwa Singh = Kastoori Devi |________________ | ___________________|_______________________ | | | Smt. Prakashwati Dhapo Malloo = Sri Ram = Kanchchi ________|_________________________________________________ | | | | Smt. Kamla Devi Chatrapal Chetan Pal Satya Pal
The dispute relates to house No. 46 situate in Mohalla Chatta, Delhi Gate. Ghaziabad. Mool Chand was admittedly the exclusive owner of this house. He died on 2nd September, 1968. Smt. Kastoori Devi, the widow of Mool Chand, contends that prior to his death, Mool Chand executed a will in her favour on August 30, 1968, in respect of this house. She instituted Original Suit No. 319 of 1971 on March 17, 1971 for eviction of Sri Ram and his son Satya Pal alleging that they were her tenants on rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month besides Rs. 4/- per month for electricity charges and that she is the exclusive owner landlady. The rent was in arrears since October 1, 1968. The tenancy was determined by a combined notice u/s 3 of the U. P. Act III of 1947 read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 7-11-1970 The relief sought was for eviction from the house and recovery of arrears of rent besides damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 24/- per month. Nanuwa Singh was arrayed as pro forma defendant No. 3 to the suit since he had made purchase of half share in the house from Smt. .Kastoori Devi by a registered deed dated 26th October. 1963.
3. Original Suit No. 1017 of 1971 was instituted on Auaust 20, 1971 by Salva Pal against Smt. Kastoori Devi contending that he is the adopted son of Mool Chand deceased. He had been living, it was said, in a portion of House No. 46 aforesaid in capacity as the adopted "on, but Smt. Kastoori Devi threatened and intended to evict him and hence the relief sought for perpetual injunction. This Suit has given rise to Second Appeal No. 1005 of 1978.
4. Original Suit No. 154 of 1971 was brought by Smt. Kamla Devi. daughter of Sri Ram on August 31 1971 claiming partition of the house abovementioned. She asserts that she has 19th share in the house and that her brother Satya Pal had been adopted by Mool Chand deceased. Second Appeal No. 1604 of 1978 has arisen from this suit.
5. In defence to the suits instituted by Satya Pal and Smt. Kamla Devi, it was pleaded by Smt. Kastoori Devi that Mool Chand executed will in her favour dated August. 30, 1968 whereby she is the absolute and exclusive owner of the said house. It was refuted that Satya Pal had been adopted by Mool CHAND. It was denied that the children of Sri Ram have no share in the house. In the suit which Smt. Kastoori Devi filed, the defence raised by Satya Pal and Sri Ram has been that there was no will made by Mool Chand and that Satya Pa] had been adopted by the deceased. It was refuted by them that Smt. Kastoori Devi is the exclusive owner on the death of her husband.
6. The three suits were tried together and dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge. Ghaziabad. on March 31, 1971. It was held t
Sadachi Ammal Vs. Rajathi Ammal and Others
Ramchandra Rambux Vs. Champabai and Others
H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.