MANVENDRA SINGH Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two appeals arise out of two suits that were filed by the same set of plaintiffs, who are respondents here. Suit No. 601 of 1969 was filed by them for possession against the predecessors-in-interest of appellants 4 to 17. The decision therein was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1978 and now Second Appeal No. 2191 of 1979 has been filed.

(2.) The other suit No. 23 of 1971 was filed by the respondents for injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs by demolition and reconstruction of the property and from interfering in their peaceful possession. Subsequently a relief of possession was also added. It may be observed here that on the death of the two original defendants their heirs were impleaded as defendants l/1 to 1 / 8 and 2/1 to 2/6 and they are now appellants 4 to 17 in these appeals. The appellants 1 to 3 are the original defdts of the suit.

(3.) A short resume of facts giving rise to the suits may be given here. On the death of the original owner of the disputed property it devolved on his son Bholey Ram. When Bholay Ram died he left behind him his widow Smt. Gaura Bahu and a married daughter Tulsa who had a minor son Heera Lal. On 1-4-1910 Gaura Bahu purported to gift the property to Hira Lal claiming herself to be its rightful owner. The plaint allegation was that the property being ancestral in the hands of Bholey, Gaura Bahu inherited only widow's interest therein and could not bestow full rights to the donee under the gift as its full owner. In any case the gift could ensure only during her lifetime and on the death of Gaura Bahu in 1911 Tulsa became entitled to the property as immediate reversioner and she perfected those rights on the passing of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956. This property was gifted by her on 30-7-1963 to the plaintiff. Eversince the plaintiffs claim to be continuing in possession thereof as absolute owner. The plaint case was that heirs of Heera Lal had no right to transfer the property under sale deed dated 2-9-1966 to Ram Prasad and Virendra Kumar who have since transferred the property to appellant No. 1 on 10-3-1969. As appellant No.1 was threatening to demolish the construction claiming to be its full owner and thus cause plaintiff dispossession therefrom, the plaintiffs rushed to the court for redress.