RAM PURI Vs. USHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 92 of 1978 whereby said court has dismissed the suit for cancellation of lease deed dated 17.10.1978 with costs.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the entire lower court record.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 Usha Sharma (in whose favour disputed lease deed was executed by defendant No.2) admitted that Mahant Raghuwansh Puri was a Grahasth Gosain and owned the property mentioned in the plaint. It was also admitted by her that he (Mahant Raghuwansh Puri) died on 24.12.1932. It is pleaded in the written statement of defendant No.1 that at the time of the death of Mahant Raghuwansh Puri not only Kaura Devi (defendant No.2) was survived by him as his widow but also by Indra Devi who was daughter of Raghuwansh Puri. This is also admitted by this defendant (No.1) that long drawn litigation went between Indra Devi and defendant No. 2 Kaura Devi (step mother) which finally terminated in terms of compromise between the parties vide order dated 26.05.1950 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Rest of the allegations in the plaint are denied by this respondent. In the additional pleas it is stated that plaintiff is not the successor of the GADDI of Mahant Raghuwansh Puri. It is also pleaded that since Raghuwansh Puri was a Grahasth Gosain as such neither he was an ascetic nor a Mahant. It is further stated in the written statement of defendant No. 1 that Kaura Devi inherited the property left by Mahant Raghuwansh Puri on the basis of order passed by the Supreme Court on 2.05.1950 in terms of compromise between the parties to litigation of said case. Plea of adoption taken by the plaintiff is also denied by this defendant. The deed dated 27.06.1955 in favour of the plaintiff allegedly executed by Kaura Devi (defendant No. 2) is also denied. It is specifically pleaded that a married woman cannot make anyone as her CHELA. It is also denied by defendant No. 1 that due to weak mental condition of defendant No. 2 anyone wants to grab the property in question. As to the lease deed dated 17.10.1978 it is pleaded by the defendant No. 1 that the same is valid document executed by defendant No. 2. It is further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 2 had every right to execute said deed. In para 24 of the written statement defendant No. 1 states that defendant No. 2 did bring up plaintiff Ram Puri as son of her employee who has filed a suit and deprived defendant No.2 of her rights.