SUKHDEV AND OTHERS Vs. RAM BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second appeal No. 24 of 1986-87 has been filed by Sukhdev and others and is directed against the judgement and decree dated 21-10-86 passed by Sri Jagdish Singh, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, allowing appeal No. 129 of 1983, Ram Bahadur and others Vs. Sukhdev and others , and setting aside the judgement and decree dated 26-6-83 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulpur, in suits under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951.

(2.) Revision No. 11, which is treated as a second appeal, is also directed against the common judgement and decree dated 21-10-86 of learned Additional Commissioner in Appeal No. 130 of 1983, Ram Bahadur Vs. Tulsi Ram and others. Both the appeals have been heard and are being decided together as parties and the controversy involved are the same.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Ram Bahadur, plaintiff, filed two suits under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 against two different sets of defendants, one Sukhdev and others, and the other, Tulsi Ram and others who are vendors from Smt. Hasani, the tenure holder of the land in suit Plaintiff alleged that the name of Smt. Hasani, defendant, had been wrongly mutated as widow of Babu, deceased, that she had remarried with one Mewa Lal and as such could not inherit the property of deceased Babu and had no right to execute sale deeds in favour of defendants in the two suits The suits were contested by the defendants on the ground that Smt. Hasani was the widow of Babu, deceased and had every right to execute sale deeds in favour of defendants. The trial court dismissed the suits of the plaintiff Ram Bahadur, on the grounds that remarriage of Smt. Hasani had not been proved and that she was the widow of Babu, deceased. Two separate appeals were filer by plaintiff, Ram Bahadur, before the learned Additional Confirmation who reversed the findings of the learned trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suits holding that the fact of remarriage of Smt. Hasani with Mewa of village Satanpur had been proved, that she could not be held to be the widow aid legal heir of Babu, deceased, and that the sale deeds executed by her in favour of other defendants were illegal and without any authority.