SHYAMA DEVI Vs. MANJU SHUKLA MRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants, for setting aside an order dated 21/4/1994, passed by the High court of Rajasthan. By the aforesaid order, the revision petition of Respondent 1 was allowed and a direction was given to the Additional District Judge, to make afresh adjudication of the objections filed on behalf of the parties, to the report of the Commissioner. A further direction was given by the High court that while doing so, the order dated 3/3/1992, passed by this court, should be strictly followed.

(3.) A suit for partition was filed in the year 1965 by Dhanpat Rai. In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 24/1/1975 in respect of the properties in dispute. Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad were defendants in the said suit. Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad filed an appeal before the High court against the said decree. It may be mentioned that in the present appeal, we are concerned with the branch of Jamuna Prasad, who had two sons and four daughters, apart from his wife, who is appellant 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'). Mrs Manju Shukla, Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') is one of the daughters of the aforesaid Jamuna Prasad. On 5/5/1980, a petition of compromise was filed on behalf of Dhanpat Rai, Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad in the High court, On28/6/1982, the respondent made an application before the High court, to be impleaded as a party being the daughter of Jamuna Prasad. That petition was rejected on 22/2/1983. On 1/9/1986, the appeal which had been filed before the High court on behalf of jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad, was disposed of in terms of the petition of compromise. Jamuna Prasad died on 7/1/1987 leaving behind the appellant as his widow and two sons and four daughters including the respondent. During the preparation of the final decree on 6/5/1989 respondent filed a petition claiming 1/3 share in the properties. This application was entertained because after the death of Jamuna Prasad, respondent claimed to be his one of the legal heirs. The application filed by the said respondent was allowed by the Additional District Judge on 13/7/1990. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order filed a civil revision petition before the High court. The High court was of the opinion that the application dated 6/5/1989 filed on behalf of the respondent was maintainable but the trial court has to decide afresh as to what share she was entitled after hearing all the parties concerned. Against the said order of the High court, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15175 of 1991 was filed before this court, on behalf of the respondent, which was disposed of on 3/3/1992. This court gave the following direction: